In 2012–13, the ANAO pilot project to audit Key Performance Indicators(KPIs) was continued with the objective of conducting a review of framework developments, both in terms of the clarity of the policy and guidance issued by Finance and the performance of agencies in applying this policy and guidance, as a basis for implementing a future program of audits; and to further develop and test an audit methodology to address the practical challenges of assessing the appropriateness of KPIs, and their complete and accurate reporting.

The audit objective was to assess whether agreements between Australian Government (Commonwealth) agencies reflect sound administrative practices. To meet this objective, the audit reviewed current government policy and a range of better practice guidelines, conducted interviews with agencies and examined cross-agency agreements, to formulate suitable audit criteria and subsequently develop better practice principles.

Recent performance audit priority for the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio has been directed at the administration of funding for land transport. Accordingly, this audit is one of a series ANAO is undertaking of land transport funding programs. Four audits have already been completed, namely:

• ANAO Audit Report No. 31 2005–06, Roads to Recovery;
• ANAO Audit Report No. 45 2006–07, The National Black Spot Program;
• ANAO Audit Report No. 22 2007–08, Administration of Grants to the Australian Rail Track Corporation; and
• ANAO Audit Report No. 29 2008–09, Delivery of Projects on the AusLink National Network.

The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the administration of specific climate change programs by the departments of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and Resources, Energy and Tourism. In undertaking this audit, particular emphasis was given to the implementation of good administrative practice and the extent to which the program objectives were being met. The audit followed four lines of inquiry:

• development of program objectives and assessment of program risks;
• assessment and approval of competitive grant applications;
• assessment and approval of rebate applications; and
• measurement and reporting of program outcomes.

The objective of this audit was to assess whether the WSA program has been administered effectively by the NWC/DEWHA, as relevant, and is achieving its stated program objective. Specifically, the ANAO examined whether:

• funding proposals have been assessed and approved in a fair, consistent manner and in accordance with applicable criteria, program guidelines and better practice;
• appropriate funding arrangements have been established with proponents, having regard to the size of the grant, the type of entity involved and the nature of the project; and
• DEWHA (and previously the NWC) is actively monitoring whether proponents are complying with their obligations, and grant payments are made only in accordance with funding agreements.

More broadly, the audit examined DEWHA's strategy for evaluating and reporting on the long-term benefits of the program.