Latest news with #AustralianNationalAuditOffice
The Guardian
05-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
As the world grows more unpredictable, Australia's defence should be focused on people, not purchases
Australians have long taken some comfort in the protection afforded by geography and the tyranny of distance. It was an article of faith that Australia would have 10 years warning to prepare for any conflict, and that the nation the defence minister calls our capital-A ally would spring to our defence. The 10-year buffer was debunked in the 2020 defence review, and the update two years later concluded that the Australian Defence Force 'as currently constituted and equipped is not fully fit for purpose'. As the US administration scrambles many of the accepted norms of the past 80 years and urges all its allies to spend more money to militarise, the reliability of our Ally is now a matter of intense public debate. But this is not just a geopolitical dilemma, or an abstract discussion about scenarios. A recent report by the Australian National Audit Office highlights shortcomings in the defence department in managing contracts and even investigating bribery claims. It also found it failed to provide regular formal and detailed ministerial briefings about the scale of imminent threats. This suggests that greater security would not necessarily be assured by spending billions more on big, shiny machines and weapons that inevitably cost more than predicted and, almost as inevitably, fail to live up to the sales spiel embodied in the tender document. The shortcomings that cause concern about security lie even closer to home. The number of people employed in the ADF has been falling for decades. At last count there were only 57,226 permanent staff in the army, navy and air force, another 32,560 in the reserves and a similar number of civilians in the department. By comparison, Woolworths employs 210,000 people. If the pandemic taught us nothing else, it is that food security is important. But so is national security. That takes on many new dimensions these days on land, sea, air, space and in cyberspace, and most importantly security in our homes, cities and communities. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Australia is still low on the list of countries facing imminent invasion or attack but attempts to neutralise the continent could arrive with devastating stealth. The rumble of natural disaster and war is such a constant these days that it is easy to forget that when they land, they erupt in a flash. One day you are going about your normal life and then suddenly it changes, everything you took for granted gone. For years the consequences of these catastrophes have provided an unwelcome backdrop to daily life. Images of death and devastation delivered by terrifying military machines in Ukraine, Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan and Iran flicker across our screens, competing with images of lives and communities devastated by floods, fires, droughts and cyclones. It is striking that even in the publicly available documents about defence preparedness, climate change is a major talking point. Reading between the lines, it's not hard to see that the destructive regional impact of climate change – inundated islands, devastated economies, shattered lives – keeps defence strategists up at night. Experience has shown that when natural disasters strike, resilience is tested to breaking point. We have become accustomed to hearing that the ADF is being deployed to assist during climate-triggered disasters, sometimes with tragic unintended consequences, as the 2020 Canberra fires and the tragic accident near Lismore during the recent Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. The review of defence capacity has made it clear that the ADF should only be used as a 'last resort' during disasters, a recommendation that the government agreed to 'in principle'. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion In the last three years one disaster has piled on another and the troops have been rolled out to support the largely volunteer emergency services workers. But there is no public sign of discussion about an alternative civilian defence force being actively developed – people with the skills to know what to do when disaster happens. One of the more important observations in the review that didn't make it into the recommendations was about social resilience. Resilience is an overused weasel word, but making it real means 'equipping communities to absorb shocks, adapt to new conditions, and (potentially) transform itself as a result of particular shocks'. Looking around the world, there are lessons about how this might be done, and ANU's National Security College has begun a national consultation about what Australians think security might look like, beyond the missiles, drones, frigates, fighter planes and submarines. Nations that share borders with potential aggressors, like Finland and Poland, have maintained active civil defence operations, or those living with threat, like Taiwan and Israel, have built bunkers, car parks that transform into hospitals to protect citizens. Nearly a third of the funds that the Nato countries agreed to commit to increased defence spending demanded by the US is going to this civilian security, protecting the infrastructure that makes life possible. In Australia we have barely begun to have this conversation, though we are told almost daily that the threat is growing. The pandemic and natural disasters highlighted the gaps, but typically we stalled on the next steps. Activating real civic resilience could be a KPI for the prime minister's progressive patriotism, much as his predecessor John Curtin once did. This might be more effective than shipping more dollars overseas to buy ever more complex machines that can, as we see nightly on the news, be destroyed by another even bigger machine. Julianne Schultz an emeritus professor at Griffith University and the author of The Idea of Australia
The Advertiser
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
Govt made $23.9m change to support Indigenous businesses without knowing if policy was effective
The Albanese government announced $23.9 million to improve the government purchasing of goods and services from Indigenous businesses without knowing if the policy was effective or not. A report from the Australian National Audit Office has found there was limited evidence about whether the Commonwealth Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP) was improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, despite agencies spending tens of billions of dollars on contracts designed to support Indigenous economic empowerment. In February and as part of the March budget, Labor announced measures to "strengthen" the policy, however, as the report outlines, there is no evidence that the policy works. "The National Indigenous Australians Agency has not demonstrated whether the [mandatory minimum requirements] are improving Indigenous economic participation," the report notes. "Reforms to the Indigenous Procurement Policy were announced in February 2025 without a clear understanding of the policy's effectiveness." The IPP was first introduced in 2015 to encourage government agencies to purchase from Indigenous-owned businesses and organisations in order to improve outcomes for Indigenous people. As part of the policy, there are mandatory minimum requirements (MMRs) for contracts worth more than $7.5 million. The requirements include a minimum percentage of Indigenous employment on a contract, either 3 or 4 per cent, depending on the contract. While the policy has widespread support within the sector, there have been concerns raised that despite the amount of government spending on Indigenous procurement, that money does not always end up in Indigenous hands. A parliamentary inquiry in November 2024 said so called "black-cladding" was occurring, where non-Indigenous companies partnered with First Nations organisations, without the First Nations organisation having control or benefiting from the procurement. In response to this and other inquiries, in February 2025, Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy announced changes to "strengthen" the Indigenous Procurement Policy, including lifting the targets and changing the ownership rules to qualify as an Indigenous business. "These reforms, based on consultations with Indigenous and non-Indigenous businesses, Chambers of Commerce and various levels of government, will create even more opportunities for First Nations businesses," Senator McCarthy said at the time. This was followed up with a $23.9 million funding boost in the 2025 budget. In response to questions from this masthead, Senator McCarthy said the important policy supported the growth of Indigenous businesses. "We know that since the IPP started in 2015, over 80,000 contracts have been awarded, with a total value of over $11.4 billion (up from the $10 billion announced in October)." However, five years on from an initial audit of the program and increasing billions being spent under the policy, there was limited data to show the dollars were improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, the audit office found. The first audit, published in 2020, recommended the NIAA implement an evaluation strategy. This was developed but never implemented. The follow-up 2025 audit found that while entities were including the policy requirement at the start of contracts, there was incomplete reporting of how these requirements were fulfilled in practice and performance measures did not align with the policy's intent. "The [National Indigenous Australians Agency] public reporting on the IPP does not provide information on the MMRs' effectiveness. It is unclear if the IPP's objectives of stimulating Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development, and providing Indigenous Australians with more opportunities to participate in the economy, are achieved." Of those contracts entered into since the policy came into effect, less than 20 per cent had a final compliance assessment at the end of the contract. Of those that did, over a quarter were found not to have met the target. Support for implementing the policy, including guidance documents for Indigenous businesses, remained in draft or were incomplete; in addition, agencies were incorrectly exempting themselves from the requirements. While observers have hailed the "success" of the program, given agencies were spending more under the policy, this did not mean the policy was achieving its intent of supporting Indigenous Australians. "The information [contract number and value] does not go to the effectiveness of the IPP in achieving its stated objective (which is to 'stimulate Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development, providing Indigenous Australians with more opportunities to participate in the economy')," the ANAO report found Senator McCarthy did not respond directly to the concerns raised in the report, but said the reforms would improve the policy and crack down on "black cladding". "The government's reforms strengthened eligibility criteria, requiring businesses to be 51 per cent First Nations owned and controlled (or to be registered as an Indigenous Corporation). They also lifted the Commonwealth's Indigenous procurement target and committed to working with regulators to better target and tackle 'black cladding'." The report made eight recommendations, all of which were agreed to by the NIAA and other agencies. The Albanese government announced $23.9 million to improve the government purchasing of goods and services from Indigenous businesses without knowing if the policy was effective or not. A report from the Australian National Audit Office has found there was limited evidence about whether the Commonwealth Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP) was improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, despite agencies spending tens of billions of dollars on contracts designed to support Indigenous economic empowerment. In February and as part of the March budget, Labor announced measures to "strengthen" the policy, however, as the report outlines, there is no evidence that the policy works. "The National Indigenous Australians Agency has not demonstrated whether the [mandatory minimum requirements] are improving Indigenous economic participation," the report notes. "Reforms to the Indigenous Procurement Policy were announced in February 2025 without a clear understanding of the policy's effectiveness." The IPP was first introduced in 2015 to encourage government agencies to purchase from Indigenous-owned businesses and organisations in order to improve outcomes for Indigenous people. As part of the policy, there are mandatory minimum requirements (MMRs) for contracts worth more than $7.5 million. The requirements include a minimum percentage of Indigenous employment on a contract, either 3 or 4 per cent, depending on the contract. While the policy has widespread support within the sector, there have been concerns raised that despite the amount of government spending on Indigenous procurement, that money does not always end up in Indigenous hands. A parliamentary inquiry in November 2024 said so called "black-cladding" was occurring, where non-Indigenous companies partnered with First Nations organisations, without the First Nations organisation having control or benefiting from the procurement. In response to this and other inquiries, in February 2025, Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy announced changes to "strengthen" the Indigenous Procurement Policy, including lifting the targets and changing the ownership rules to qualify as an Indigenous business. "These reforms, based on consultations with Indigenous and non-Indigenous businesses, Chambers of Commerce and various levels of government, will create even more opportunities for First Nations businesses," Senator McCarthy said at the time. This was followed up with a $23.9 million funding boost in the 2025 budget. In response to questions from this masthead, Senator McCarthy said the important policy supported the growth of Indigenous businesses. "We know that since the IPP started in 2015, over 80,000 contracts have been awarded, with a total value of over $11.4 billion (up from the $10 billion announced in October)." However, five years on from an initial audit of the program and increasing billions being spent under the policy, there was limited data to show the dollars were improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, the audit office found. The first audit, published in 2020, recommended the NIAA implement an evaluation strategy. This was developed but never implemented. The follow-up 2025 audit found that while entities were including the policy requirement at the start of contracts, there was incomplete reporting of how these requirements were fulfilled in practice and performance measures did not align with the policy's intent. "The [National Indigenous Australians Agency] public reporting on the IPP does not provide information on the MMRs' effectiveness. It is unclear if the IPP's objectives of stimulating Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development, and providing Indigenous Australians with more opportunities to participate in the economy, are achieved." Of those contracts entered into since the policy came into effect, less than 20 per cent had a final compliance assessment at the end of the contract. Of those that did, over a quarter were found not to have met the target. Support for implementing the policy, including guidance documents for Indigenous businesses, remained in draft or were incomplete; in addition, agencies were incorrectly exempting themselves from the requirements. While observers have hailed the "success" of the program, given agencies were spending more under the policy, this did not mean the policy was achieving its intent of supporting Indigenous Australians. "The information [contract number and value] does not go to the effectiveness of the IPP in achieving its stated objective (which is to 'stimulate Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development, providing Indigenous Australians with more opportunities to participate in the economy')," the ANAO report found Senator McCarthy did not respond directly to the concerns raised in the report, but said the reforms would improve the policy and crack down on "black cladding". "The government's reforms strengthened eligibility criteria, requiring businesses to be 51 per cent First Nations owned and controlled (or to be registered as an Indigenous Corporation). They also lifted the Commonwealth's Indigenous procurement target and committed to working with regulators to better target and tackle 'black cladding'." The report made eight recommendations, all of which were agreed to by the NIAA and other agencies. The Albanese government announced $23.9 million to improve the government purchasing of goods and services from Indigenous businesses without knowing if the policy was effective or not. A report from the Australian National Audit Office has found there was limited evidence about whether the Commonwealth Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP) was improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, despite agencies spending tens of billions of dollars on contracts designed to support Indigenous economic empowerment. In February and as part of the March budget, Labor announced measures to "strengthen" the policy, however, as the report outlines, there is no evidence that the policy works. "The National Indigenous Australians Agency has not demonstrated whether the [mandatory minimum requirements] are improving Indigenous economic participation," the report notes. "Reforms to the Indigenous Procurement Policy were announced in February 2025 without a clear understanding of the policy's effectiveness." The IPP was first introduced in 2015 to encourage government agencies to purchase from Indigenous-owned businesses and organisations in order to improve outcomes for Indigenous people. As part of the policy, there are mandatory minimum requirements (MMRs) for contracts worth more than $7.5 million. The requirements include a minimum percentage of Indigenous employment on a contract, either 3 or 4 per cent, depending on the contract. While the policy has widespread support within the sector, there have been concerns raised that despite the amount of government spending on Indigenous procurement, that money does not always end up in Indigenous hands. A parliamentary inquiry in November 2024 said so called "black-cladding" was occurring, where non-Indigenous companies partnered with First Nations organisations, without the First Nations organisation having control or benefiting from the procurement. In response to this and other inquiries, in February 2025, Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy announced changes to "strengthen" the Indigenous Procurement Policy, including lifting the targets and changing the ownership rules to qualify as an Indigenous business. "These reforms, based on consultations with Indigenous and non-Indigenous businesses, Chambers of Commerce and various levels of government, will create even more opportunities for First Nations businesses," Senator McCarthy said at the time. This was followed up with a $23.9 million funding boost in the 2025 budget. In response to questions from this masthead, Senator McCarthy said the important policy supported the growth of Indigenous businesses. "We know that since the IPP started in 2015, over 80,000 contracts have been awarded, with a total value of over $11.4 billion (up from the $10 billion announced in October)." However, five years on from an initial audit of the program and increasing billions being spent under the policy, there was limited data to show the dollars were improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, the audit office found. The first audit, published in 2020, recommended the NIAA implement an evaluation strategy. This was developed but never implemented. The follow-up 2025 audit found that while entities were including the policy requirement at the start of contracts, there was incomplete reporting of how these requirements were fulfilled in practice and performance measures did not align with the policy's intent. "The [National Indigenous Australians Agency] public reporting on the IPP does not provide information on the MMRs' effectiveness. It is unclear if the IPP's objectives of stimulating Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development, and providing Indigenous Australians with more opportunities to participate in the economy, are achieved." Of those contracts entered into since the policy came into effect, less than 20 per cent had a final compliance assessment at the end of the contract. Of those that did, over a quarter were found not to have met the target. Support for implementing the policy, including guidance documents for Indigenous businesses, remained in draft or were incomplete; in addition, agencies were incorrectly exempting themselves from the requirements. While observers have hailed the "success" of the program, given agencies were spending more under the policy, this did not mean the policy was achieving its intent of supporting Indigenous Australians. "The information [contract number and value] does not go to the effectiveness of the IPP in achieving its stated objective (which is to 'stimulate Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development, providing Indigenous Australians with more opportunities to participate in the economy')," the ANAO report found Senator McCarthy did not respond directly to the concerns raised in the report, but said the reforms would improve the policy and crack down on "black cladding". "The government's reforms strengthened eligibility criteria, requiring businesses to be 51 per cent First Nations owned and controlled (or to be registered as an Indigenous Corporation). They also lifted the Commonwealth's Indigenous procurement target and committed to working with regulators to better target and tackle 'black cladding'." The report made eight recommendations, all of which were agreed to by the NIAA and other agencies. The Albanese government announced $23.9 million to improve the government purchasing of goods and services from Indigenous businesses without knowing if the policy was effective or not. A report from the Australian National Audit Office has found there was limited evidence about whether the Commonwealth Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP) was improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, despite agencies spending tens of billions of dollars on contracts designed to support Indigenous economic empowerment. In February and as part of the March budget, Labor announced measures to "strengthen" the policy, however, as the report outlines, there is no evidence that the policy works. "The National Indigenous Australians Agency has not demonstrated whether the [mandatory minimum requirements] are improving Indigenous economic participation," the report notes. "Reforms to the Indigenous Procurement Policy were announced in February 2025 without a clear understanding of the policy's effectiveness." The IPP was first introduced in 2015 to encourage government agencies to purchase from Indigenous-owned businesses and organisations in order to improve outcomes for Indigenous people. As part of the policy, there are mandatory minimum requirements (MMRs) for contracts worth more than $7.5 million. The requirements include a minimum percentage of Indigenous employment on a contract, either 3 or 4 per cent, depending on the contract. While the policy has widespread support within the sector, there have been concerns raised that despite the amount of government spending on Indigenous procurement, that money does not always end up in Indigenous hands. A parliamentary inquiry in November 2024 said so called "black-cladding" was occurring, where non-Indigenous companies partnered with First Nations organisations, without the First Nations organisation having control or benefiting from the procurement. In response to this and other inquiries, in February 2025, Minister for Indigenous Australians Malarndirri McCarthy announced changes to "strengthen" the Indigenous Procurement Policy, including lifting the targets and changing the ownership rules to qualify as an Indigenous business. "These reforms, based on consultations with Indigenous and non-Indigenous businesses, Chambers of Commerce and various levels of government, will create even more opportunities for First Nations businesses," Senator McCarthy said at the time. This was followed up with a $23.9 million funding boost in the 2025 budget. In response to questions from this masthead, Senator McCarthy said the important policy supported the growth of Indigenous businesses. "We know that since the IPP started in 2015, over 80,000 contracts have been awarded, with a total value of over $11.4 billion (up from the $10 billion announced in October)." However, five years on from an initial audit of the program and increasing billions being spent under the policy, there was limited data to show the dollars were improving the lives of Indigenous Australians, the audit office found. The first audit, published in 2020, recommended the NIAA implement an evaluation strategy. This was developed but never implemented. The follow-up 2025 audit found that while entities were including the policy requirement at the start of contracts, there was incomplete reporting of how these requirements were fulfilled in practice and performance measures did not align with the policy's intent. "The [National Indigenous Australians Agency] public reporting on the IPP does not provide information on the MMRs' effectiveness. It is unclear if the IPP's objectives of stimulating Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development, and providing Indigenous Australians with more opportunities to participate in the economy, are achieved." Of those contracts entered into since the policy came into effect, less than 20 per cent had a final compliance assessment at the end of the contract. Of those that did, over a quarter were found not to have met the target. Support for implementing the policy, including guidance documents for Indigenous businesses, remained in draft or were incomplete; in addition, agencies were incorrectly exempting themselves from the requirements. While observers have hailed the "success" of the program, given agencies were spending more under the policy, this did not mean the policy was achieving its intent of supporting Indigenous Australians. "The information [contract number and value] does not go to the effectiveness of the IPP in achieving its stated objective (which is to 'stimulate Indigenous entrepreneurship, business and economic development, providing Indigenous Australians with more opportunities to participate in the economy')," the ANAO report found Senator McCarthy did not respond directly to the concerns raised in the report, but said the reforms would improve the policy and crack down on "black cladding". "The government's reforms strengthened eligibility criteria, requiring businesses to be 51 per cent First Nations owned and controlled (or to be registered as an Indigenous Corporation). They also lifted the Commonwealth's Indigenous procurement target and committed to working with regulators to better target and tackle 'black cladding'." The report made eight recommendations, all of which were agreed to by the NIAA and other agencies.
The Guardian
09-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Australian government gave $2.7m to Elon Musk's X for advertisements in billionaire's first year as owner
The Australian government spent nearly $3m of taxpayer dollars advertising on Twitter/X in the first year after the world's richest man, Elon Musk, took over the platform, despite warnings of brand reputation damage that caused the government to initially pause ads. Data obtained by Guardian Australia, after a protracted freedom of information battle with the federal finance department, revealed $2.7m was spent between November 2022 and November 2023. Musk finalised his purchase of the platform on 28 October 2022. The data covers all ad spending on government department campaigns including health advisories and messaging around budget initiatives. In 2022-2023 this included advertising around the voice referendum and vaccine advertisements, among others. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter The spending comes despite the government pausing ad spend on what was then called Twitter on 29 September 2022, following reports of a number of brands' advertisements appearing next to inappropriate content on Twitter, a report from the Australian National Audit Office revealed last week. A spokesperson for the finance department said it was suspended 'to evaluate brand safety measures' and restored shortly after. 'Following further review, the government's master media agency that manages advertising placement advised that sufficient brand safety measures were in place and advertising could return to the platform on 5 October 2022 with the exception of placements on Twitter profiles,' the spokesperson said. The following year's data – accounting for the shift when Musk became a full-throated supporter of Donald Trump – is being withheld until January 2026. The department said in its decision that releasing the data now would weaken the government's ability to negotiate with media on advertising. Sources have told Guardian Australia the total ad spend for the year is similar to 2022-23. Axel Bruns, professor in the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University of Technology, said the spend could reflect the uncertainty the government had around whether the platform would continue to be popular under Musk's leadership. 'With hindsight, there now seems little value in government advertising on X – the platform is overrun with disinformation, abuse, hate speech and spam bots, and most sensible users will have left by now,' he said. 'This might not have been as clear at the time when this advertising was purchased, though.' Bruns said any continued government advertising on X is 'unlikely to make its desired impact on audiences' but could be seen to be soft diplomacy to win favour with the Trump administration, but said it would not be a 'useful investment' given the reputation damage to continue to advertise on X in its current form. The continued ad spend comes despite Musk describing the Albanese government as 'fascist' over its now-abandoned misinformation legislation, and engaging in several legal battles with the Australian online safety regulator over content moderation on X, one of which was heard in the administrative review tribunal last week. Musk has become inexorably entwined with Trump and subsequently the new US administration in the past few months. Prior to running the US government's department of government efficiency (Doge) tasked with slashing government programs and spending, Musk became Trump's biggest campaign donor in the 2024 presidential election, and invested millions in his failed attempt to have a conservative judge win the Wisconsin supreme court's election last week. Musk's personal popularity has tanked this year, as a result, with a recent poll finding more than half of Americans believed Musk and Doge were harming the US. The finance department, which collects data from every government agency on ad spending, does not typically break down spending on individual platforms. Total digital ad spending for 2022-2023 was $56.3m. Guardian Australia filed a freedom of information request with the finance department for data specifically on X spending last year, but was initially refused. After seeking a review of the decision by the Australian information commissioner, the finance department agreed to release the first year of data this week. X was contacted for comment.
