Client survey

After each performance audit report is tabled, feedback on the audit process is sought independently from the senior executive responsible for the audited program by means of a questionnaire and an interview with the responsible manager. This evaluation is performed by a firm of consultants that is engaged by the ANAO but is independent of the performance audit teams.

In the December 2006 survey, the consultancy firm reported on responses received for the 2005–06 reporting period. Overall, our performance showed an improvement on the previous year and marginally higher than the average level recorded since the survey began in 1997–98. In the 2006 report, 32 of the 46 selected public entity areas participated in the survey. This represents a response rate of 70 per cent, equal to the previous year.

In terms of overall performance, agencies rated the ANAO’s conduct of performance audits positively. Some key results are set out below:

  • 87 per cent of respondents considered that the audit team demonstrated that they had the professional knowledge and audit skills required to conduct the audit;
  • 95 per cent of respondents considered that the audit teams’ conduct was characterised by integrity, and an ethical approach to their task; and
  • 100 per cent of respondents valued the independent opinion expressed by the ANAO.
The results of the survey are an important guide to the effectiveness of existing practice and also in the development of new audit practices and approaches. The survey is therefore an important business tool for improving the quality and effectiveness of performance audit products and services.

Quality assurance

We continued our program of quality assurance reviews of selected performance audits in 2006–07. The objective of the Quality Assurance Review Program is to ensure that performance audits have been completed in accordance with ANAO Auditing Standards. The review of performance audits tabled in 2006–07 found that, across the audits examined, there was general compliance with these standards although there was room for improvement in documenting planning and fieldwork phases of performance audits. The implementation of an electronic document and records management system across the ANAO during 2007–08 will assist with improvements in audit documentation.

A peer review arrangement for performance audits involving the ANAO and the New Zealand Audit Office began in 2000. This review supplements our own quality assurance program with two performance audits from each Office reviewed every two years. Peer review with New Zealand is approached with a dual focus of compliance and adding value.

As mentioned in last year’s annual report, in late 2005–06 the results of a review of two audits were reported. During 2006–07 the ongoing program review of performance audit practices took into account the results of this review, in particular by implementing improvements to the audit planning and quality control processes.