We’ve recently completed the fifth year of the ANAO’s program of auditing annual performance statements, and the Parliament continues to utilise our work to inform its inquiries into public sector operations. During February’s Senate estimates hearings, our 2024–25 report informed several questions in the home affairs, education and indigenous portfolios. We introduced a new summary approach in the report by setting out, in traffic light style, achievement against measures for all 21 entities. This approach was influenced by the presentation of summary information by several audited entities in their performance statements and is intended to provide a quick reference for parliamentarians.

As you’ll see in the report, we’ve seen substantial improvements in the quality of performance statements reporting across the 21 major entities audited — particularly in the clarity and structure of performance statements and in the maturity of underlying reporting systems. Most entities received unmodified audit conclusions, and while the size of the audited cohort increased, the number of audit findings remained broadly stable. That progress demonstrates performance statements are trending away from being seen as compliance artefacts, and are increasingly being treated as tools for accountability, learning and decision making.

While it’s great to see such progress, our work continues to highlight where improvement would be welcomed. In particular, there is more to do to strengthen:

• efficiency measurement — so entities can better demonstrate value for money
• outcomes and impact reporting — that go beyond just measuring activity outputs
• adoption of more consistent measures for similar functions across entities — for example, regulation or service delivery
• reporting on cross entity initiatives — where outcomes depend on collective effort rather than individual performance.

We also saw variability in how entities report on statutory functions and office holders — in some cases this is reflected in performance statements, and in others it is not. We think there’s merit in the Department of Finance providing guidance on this issue. Parliament should be able to easily see how statutory functions and office holders are performing, including when they are embedded within departments and agencies.

With five years of experience under our belts, we’re now pushing hard to streamline our audit approach and reduce our audit procedures where it makes sense, taking into account the quality of preparation and risk. We’ve also adopted a more integrated approach by assigning leadership of performance statements and financial statements audits to the same audit leaders in most cases. Feedback from this approach has been positive.

The importance of demonstrating value for money and maintaining integrity are highlighted in our recent series of performance audits on compliance with domestic and international travel requirements. The audits examined travel arrangements across five entities: 

1. Department of Industry, Science and Resources
2. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
3. Civil Aviation Safety Authority
4. Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
5. Services Australia

While the contexts of the audited entities differed, our audit findings paint a broadly consistent picture. Most entities had largely effective frameworks in place, and systemic misuse of travel arrangements was not identified. However, in some audits we also found recurring opportunities to strengthen practice — particularly in how entities: 

• document approvals and value for money considerations
• monitor travel expenditure and patterns over time
• identify, record and respond to non compliance
• assure themselves that travel arrangements remain fit for purpose as circumstances change.

Travel is an area of enduring parliamentary and public interest, and our work reinforces an important point that is relevant to all APS entities: strong integrity settings depend as much on routine controls and oversight as they do on policy design. I encourage you to take a look at the reports and think about how travel is managed in your own entity. We’ll publish an audit insight product in the near future — keep an eye out for it.

Closing the Gap is a major government initiative that aims to ‘overcome the entrenched inequality faced by too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people so that their life outcomes are equal to all Australians’. Responsibilities are shared between the Australian and state and territory governments, and work so far has spanned multiple decades since the original intergovernmental agreement in 2006.

Our audit, which focused on the partnership and reporting of schooling and early childhood development outcomes, found that partnership arrangements and funding design have improved over time, with Australian Government entities increasingly working in partnership with First Nations people in developing policy, consistent with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. There’s some really good practice identified in the report which others may wish to learn from.

However, we also identified that public reporting on progress has become less complete and less meaningful, even where underlying data remains sound. Annual reporting has not kept pace with the expectations set out in the national agreement, limiting transparency over progress, risks and lessons learned.

For initiatives of this scale and significance, transparency is not optional — it is central to accountability. The audit’s recommendations focus on strengthening reporting so that the Parliament and the public can better understand what is being achieved, where challenges remain, and what is being learned along the way.

We recently published our latest Insights: Audit Lessons on fraud and corruption control arrangements. The product outlines the benefits of effective fraud and corruption control arrangements and includes a discussion of relevant statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and our own recent audit findings. Effective arrangements are essential to safeguarding public resources and maintaining trust.

To help entities such as your own with improving prevention, detection and correction of fraud and corruption, we outline seven key lessons:

1. Link risk assessment outcomes to controls
2. Address fraud and corruption in controls
3. Address internal and external fraud in controls
4. Establish a roadmap for suspected fraud and corruption
5. Ensure responsible officials are appropriately qualified
6. Regularly test the effectiveness of controls
7. Capture good data and quantify losses

If you’re responsible for your entity’s fraud and corruption control arrangements, or are involved in program delivery, grants administration or regulatory activities, I encourage you to read through this insights product. You’ll find useful questions under each of the seven lessons, as well as case studies drawn directly from our audit findings — all of which are designed to help guide your work in the fraud and corruption control space.

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit recently advised that it will no longer request a major projects report (MPR) from the ANAO and the Department of Defence, bringing to a close a series of reports that have supported parliamentary scrutiny of Defence acquisition projects over the last 18 years. In its public statement, the committee acknowledged the substantial contribution the report has made to transparency and accountability over time, while noting that increasing levels of non-disclosure in the context of changing strategic circumstances have limited the extent of information that can be meaningfully reported. The JCPAA has indicated that it will transition to a process where it examines performance audits of Defence in greater detail.

The Parliament’s interest in Defence capability acquisition remains strong, including a motion passed in the Senate on 1 April 2026 requesting reinstatement of the MPR. The Auditor-General wrote back to the President of the Senate on 23 April 2026, and you can read the response on the ANAO website.

These developments are being considered alongside planning for the 2026–27 Annual Audit Work Program (AAWP). We recently released our draft AAWP, and work to shape the upcoming program is underway and will be informed by parliamentary priorities, emerging risks, and consultation across the sector and with the wider community. Over the next little while, the Auditor-General will be meeting with departmental secretaries across all portfolios to discuss our plans and get feedback. As in previous years, we will continue to monitor and balance the delivery of our audit commitments to ensure the program remains relevant, targeted, responsive and informed by risk. We’ll also keep an eye on measures announced in the upcoming budget.

We’re seeking to make our AAWP a rolling forward work program and more than just a list of performance audit topics. We’re able to use all three audit types — financial statements, performance statements and performance audits — as well as assurance reviews and information reports to bring transparency to key issues for the Parliament. We’ve also been doing some shorter performance audits to bring reports to the Parliament more quickly. These can also assist entities to make changes to processes before major implementations — for example, we have an audit in preparation for tabling on the cyber security readiness activities underway by ABS for this year’s Census.

Invitations have been sent for our next Financial and Performance Reporting Forum on 10 July and Audit Committee Chairs Forum on 17 July. The forums continue to provide a valuable opportunity for practitioners to share insights and learn from recent audit findings, and I encourage you to register and attend if you’ve received an invitation. If you’d like to be added to our invitation lists, let our External Relations team know.

We’re always happy to share our insights and lessons to help improve public administration and to educate entities about the ANAO’s audit processes. We are observing changes in senior staffing in the sector — it might be a good time to have us visit your entity and explain our work. If you would like senior ANAO staff to come and speak to your executive board, SES cohort or other groups of staff, please discuss this with your ANAO audit contact or reach out to our External Relations team.