The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) evaluates the management and financial performance of Australian government programs for the Australian Parliament, Australian government agencies, Australian taxpayers, and individuals interested in the performance of these programs globally. This article examines how ANAO has examined the performance of Australian Army programs and strengths and weaknesses found in these programs while recommending changes to improve program performance. It also examines how government agencies and corporations which have been the subject of ANAO analyses have reacted to ANAO findings. This assessment also examines how Plan B (the possibility that Australia might have to rely less on the U.S. for its national security requirements) may impact Australian military strategy and force structure which would have significant budgetary implications on Australian defense spending. It concludes by stressing the value of ANAO reports for Australian policymakers, the Australian public, and for external audiences interested in Australian Army policymaking.
Australian National Audit Office, Australian Army, Australian national security policymaking, geopolitics, Australian government program oversight, government transparency
Date of this Version
Bert Chapman. "Australian National Audit Office: Evaluating Australian Army Program Performance." Security Challenges, 16 (2)(2020): 106-118. Note: the file below contains the entire journal issue.
Accounting Commons, Accounting Law Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, Government Contracts Commons, Information Literacy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Military and Veterans Studies Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, Other International and Area Studies Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, Political Economy Commons, Political Science Commons, Public Administration Commons, Public Economics Commons, Public Policy Commons
Published in Security Challenges, 16 (2)(2020): 106-118.