Introduction

1.1 The Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (the Office) supports the Governor-General in the performance of his or her responsibilities. An office to support the Governor-General has existed since 1901. The Office, in its current form, was established in 1984 by an amendment to the Governor-General Act 1974.³ The planned outcome for the Office is the facilitation of the performance of the Governor-General’s role through:

the organisation and management of official duties, management and maintenance of the official households and properties, and administration of the Australian Honours and Awards system.⁴

1.2 The Office manages non-financial assets valued at $184.75 million (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1: Non-financial assets of the Office, at 30 June 2024

Source: ANAO presentation of information from Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, Annual Report 2023–24, pp. 74 and 79.

1.3 In 2023–24, the Office had 79 ongoing staff employed under the Governor-General Act 1974, comprising 76 employees located at Government House in Canberra, and three employees located at Admiralty House in Sydney. The Office is a non-corporate Commonwealth entity and subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). The accountable authority for the Office is the Official Secretary to the Governor-General.

Official residences and properties

1.4 The properties of Government House (‘Yarralumla and Surrounds’) and Admiralty House (‘Admiralty House’ and ‘Admiralty House Garden and Fortifications’) were added to the Commonwealth Heritage List⁵ in 2004.⁶ The Government House property comprises around 53 hectares, including gardens, Government House and 24 other buildings (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Government House

Source: ANAO, 2 April 2025.

1.5 The statement of heritage significance for this property states:

[It] dates from the nineteenth century and is historically highly significant … Acquired by the Commonwealth following the selection of Canberra as the site for the national capital, Yarralumla was chosen as the residence of Australia’s Governor General and has operated in this role since 1927 when Parliament opened in Canberra … Yarralumla, on account of its central and direct association with the [Monarch]’s representative in Australia, has played a highly important role in Australia’s political life over many decades. … Yarralumla, through open days and other functions and through its media presence, has acquired a high degree of social significance for the Australian community.⁷

1.6 The Admiralty House property comprises around two hectares, including gardens, Admiralty House, the Marine Barracks and seven other buildings and fortifications (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2: Admiralty House

Source: ANAO, 1 April 2025.

1.7 Admiralty House has two listings with statements of significance on the Commonwealth Heritage List: ‘Admiralty House and Lodge’; and ‘Admiralty House Gardens and Fortifications’.

Admiralty House is historically significant … as the Sydney residence of the Governor-General [and] for its association with a substantial number of significant individuals and families … Admiralty House and Lodge are aesthetically significant … The House and Lodge have architectural importance; the house as an extension in the Italianate style (1891–2) of the house Wotonga (1842–44); and the Lodge as a gothic style lodge designed as an embellishment to the house … Admiralty House and Lodge have social value, occupying a place in Sydney’s popular consciousness, due to their: visibility and status as the Sydney residence of the Governor General; harbour position; use as a venue for private recreation and outdoor social functions; and periodic accessibility to the general public.⁸

Admiralty House garden is historically significant as the garden of Admiralty House … The garden and fortifications are aesthetically significant, [having] long been a landmark and feature of … [Sydney] Harbour. The garden is a rare surviving example of a late 19th century garden on Sydney Harbour, and retains its original form with only minor changes. … The Kirribilli Point barracks and battery, built for the Royal Artillery in 1857–59, are historically significant as evidence of the fortification works in Sydney Harbour which were constructed or improved in the mid nineteenth century, with only Kirribilli Point and Fort Denison surviving substantially intact.⁹

1.8 The Office reported that in 2023–24, 620 events were hosted and around 33,000 guests and visitors were received at Government House and Admiralty House.¹⁰ The Office advised the ANAO in July 2025 that in 2024–25, 487 events were hosted and around 28,000 guests and visitors were received at Government House and Admiralty House.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

1.9 One of the Office’s three overarching responsibilities is the maintenance and upkeep of two historic properties of national interest: Government House in Canberra and Admiralty House in Sydney. The properties: are of significant heritage value; receive thousands of visitors each year, including foreign leaders, diplomats, dignitaries, school children and the general public; and host events of national importance including Australian honours, award and citizenship ceremonies. This audit provides assurance to the Parliament on the effectiveness of the Office’s management of the official residences and other non-financial assets.

Audit approach

Audit objective, criteria and scope

1.10 The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the Office’s management of official residences and other assets.

1.11 To form a conclusion against the objective, the ANAO adopted the following high-level criteria:

• Has a fit-for-purpose asset management framework been established?
• Have non-financial assets been effectively managed?
• Has asset management performance been effectively measured, monitored and reported on?

1.12 The audit scope included the management and maintenance of the Governor-General’s two official residences and properties (Government House and Admiralty House) and other non-financial assets. The ANAO did not examine the Office’s management of: financial assets; inventories (such as medals and liquor stocks); contracts; or payment systems related to asset management.

Audit methodology

1.13 The audit methodology involved:

• examination and analysis of relevant documentation and data held by the Office;
• walkthroughs of Office systems and processes;
• meetings with Office staff and other Commonwealth officers; and
• site visits to Government House in Canberra and Admiralty House in Sydney.

1.14 The audit was open to public contributions. The ANAO did not receive any contributions.

1.15 The audit was conducted in accordance with ANAO Auditing Standards at a cost to the ANAO of approximately $366,000.

1.16 The team members for this audit were Jennifer Eddie, Jake Farquharson, Lily Engelbrethsen, Ayli Chong and Christine Chalmers.

2.1 The primary outcomes of effective asset management are the realisation of value and achievement of objectives.¹¹ The implementation of a fit-for-purpose asset management framework can contribute to better governance, accountability, risk management and planning.

2.2 The Australian and international standard on asset management (AS ISO 55000:2024) establishes key principles of asset management, which include a focus on establishing clear roles and responsibilities and transparent decision-making processes.¹²

2.3 The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) requires the accountable authorities of entities to: govern the entity in a way that promotes the proper use and management of public resources (section 15); and establish and maintain appropriate systems of risk oversight and management and internal control for their entity (section 16). Specific to asset management, entities should develop processes to assess: asset-related risks; their management of assets; and their asset management systems.¹³

Have fit-for-purpose governance arrangements been established?

Management and committee structure

2.4 The Office has established roles and responsibilities for the management of properties. The Property and Projects Branch is managed by the Director, Property and Projects, who reports to the Deputy Official Secretary to the Governor-General. The Property and Projects Branch had 21 positions as at 29 January 2025, with one position vacant.

2.5 The Office has working groups and committees to support and oversee its work, including its management of official residences and other assets. The relationships between key committees and working groups referred to in this report are presented in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Asset management-related working groups and committees

Source: ANAO.

2.6 Two committees have oversight of the management of official residences and other assets.

• Management Committee — The Management Committee comprises the Official Secretary, Deputy Official Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, and directors. The Office’s 2024–25 corporate plan states the committee ‘monitor[s] performance outcomes and consider[s] strategic issues including emerging or ongoing risks’. Terms of reference for the Management Committee were prepared and endorsed in May 2025. Between 1 July 2023 and 30 April 2025, the Management Committee met at least monthly (sometimes fortnightly).
• Property Sub-committee — The sub-committee comprises the Deputy Official Secretary, the Chief Finance Officer, and members of the Property and Projects Branch, including the Director of Property and Projects, the Manager of Property and Services and project managers. The Office’s 2024–25 corporate plan states that the sub-committee ‘provides governance oversight of the property works plan’. Terms of reference were established in May 2025. Between 1 July 2023 and 30 April 2025, the Property Sub-committee met approximately monthly.

2.7 The Work, Health and Safety (WHS) Committee considers and addresses some specific issues related to assets and property management, including safety. Terms of reference for the WHS Committee were in draft as at July 2025. They state that the WHS Committee provides oversight of WHS matters and comprises the Deputy Official Secretary, Director of People and Services, Manager of Human Resources, Manager of Work Health and Safety, and elected staff representatives. A draft WHS Policy requires the WHS Committee to meet every three months. In 2023–24 and 2024–25, the WHS Committee met less frequently than required (five times, at intervals of between two and nine months).

2.8 The Office has an Audit Committee, in accordance with section 45 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act).¹⁴ An Audit Committee Charter establishes the functions of the Audit Committee, including that the Audit Committee will provide written advice on the appropriateness of the Office’s: financial and performance reporting; system of risk oversight and management; and system of internal control. The Audit Committee met four times in each of 2023–24 and 2024–25, in accordance with its Charter.

Shared asset management arrangements

2.9 The entity has a services schedule with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) for the maintenance of the Kirribilli House property¹⁵, which adjoins the Admiralty House property. The Office is paid by PM&C to maintain the grounds of Kirribilli House under the shared services arrangement.

2.10 The Security Sub-committee and Security Working Group, which include members from the other relevant Commonwealth entities, consider shared security arrangements. A draft letter of exchange for security arrangements at official establishments was circulated by the Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) to the Office, the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and PM&C in October 2024 and discussed at a meeting of the Security Working Group in November 2024. Some entities provided comments to Home Affairs in December 2024. As at July 2025, the letter was not endorsed by all four parties and further revisions remained outstanding. The Office wrote to Home Affairs in July 2025 stating that the Office’s business as usual arrangements with the AFP and Home Affairs aligned with the draft letter and suggested that if endorsement could not be obtained from all four parties, that Home Affairs consider separating the arrangements for PM&C into a different letter of exchange. Home Affairs advised the ANAO in October 2025 that it had received additional edits from the Office and PM&C and was actively working to finalise the letter of exchange.

Internal audit

2.11 Internal audit is an important tool in providing assurance over an entity’s execution of its functions and management of risks. Between 2019 and 30 June 2025, the Office engaged service providers¹⁶ to undertake internal audits and reviews, which included two directly related to asset management in 2024 and 2025 (for an accommodation project) and six covering governance topics that impact asset management: procurement and contract management (2024), performance measurement and reporting (2023), risk management (2023), legislative obligations (2022), business continuity arrangements (2021), and records management (2019).

Governance and management of records

2.12 Records management obligations are set out in the Archives Act 1983, in the PGPA Act, and by the National Archives of Australia (NAA). The NAA’s Building trust in the public record: managing information and data for government and community policy (Building Trust policy) replaced the Digital Continuity 2020 policy on 1 January 2021. The Building Trust policy identifies key requirements for managing Australian Government information assets (records, information and data).

2.13 The Office has an Information and Record Management Policy (June 2024) (Record Management policy). The Record Management policy states that the Office is ‘committed to ensuring it is meeting policies and standards mandated by [NAA] and other relevant agencies’ and that ‘all office records should be captured into the approved Records Management System for the Office and support its use over time’. The NAA defines fit-for-purpose information management processes, practices and systems as those that ‘meet identified needs for accurate information creation and use’, noting that this includes that systems maintain the availability and integrity of data and that information assets have adequate metadata.¹⁷

2.14 Between 2016 and 2024, the Office used Content Manager, an Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS), as its main records management system. In August 2021, the Management Committee decided the Office would investigate changing its main records management system to SharePoint.¹⁸ The Management Committee stated SharePoint would be supplemented with a RecordPoint ‘plugin’ that would enable compliance with NAA requirements.¹⁹ In 2022, the Management Committee postponed the RecordPoint plugin.

2.15 The Office advised the ANAO in July 2025 that it had been using SharePoint as its records management system for new records since July 2024 while Content Manager was still active on a read-only basis. As at June 2025, the Office’s records management arrangements and systems partly aligned with NAA policies and guidance, with issues around metadata, sentencing²⁰ and record availability. The Office advised the ANAO in July 2025 that migration of records from Content Manager to SharePoint/RecordPoint had occurred on 18 July 2025, meaning that the Office’s records management system was not configured to meet Australian Government records management requirements, particularly in relation to metadata, between July 2024 and July 2025.²¹ The ANAO also found instances were records were incomplete, inaccurate or not held electronically (for example, paragraphs 3.12–3.14, 3.54, 4.13, and 4.19 and Table 4.3).

2.16 In addition to being required by law, the effective management of government records impacts Australian Government performance (including responsive service delivery), integrity, accountability and transparency. Benefits of effective records management include improved decision-making capability using a reliable evidence base to support decisions.²²

Have fit-for-purpose risk management arrangements been established?

Risk and fraud management framework

2.17 The Office has a risk management framework (May 2024), which covers all nine mandatory elements of the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy.²³

2.18 The Office has a fraud and corruption control plan (last updated May 2025), in accordance with the Commonwealth Fraud and Corruption Control Framework 2024.²⁴ The plan identifies ‘the management and maintenance of the properties and administration of the honours system with administered funds’ as one of four factors that may increase the inherent risk of fraud and corruption. The plan includes a risk register with eight fraud and corruption risks, including ‘misuse of physical assets by misappropriation or theft’. The plan aligns with assessed mandatory requirements of the Fraud and Corruption Rule, except that it does not describe how fraud and corruption risks are taken into account in planning and conducting the Office’s activities. The plan partly aligns with the mandatory requirements of the Fraud and Corruption Policy.²⁵

Monitoring and management of asset-related risks

2.20 The Office’s 2024–25 corporate plan states that the Office applies ‘risk management principles to property management through the identification of property related risks in the Office Risk Register … Property Risk Register and individual project risk assessments.’²⁶

Enterprise property risk management

2.21 ‘Failure to manage and maintain the property portfolio’ has been identified as a strategic risk in the Office’s 2023–24 and 2024–25 corporate plans. The Office has an enterprise risk register, which does not include this strategic risk but includes a similar risk: ‘The properties are degraded because of inadequate management and resourcing leading to the Office not delivering its required outcome’ (the ‘properties risk’).

2.22 The ‘properties risk’ is described as having five potential impacts: financial; reputational; work health and safety; compromising the integrity of the property; and disruption to the wider program and the Office’s capacity to achieve outcomes.

2.23 In its risk management framework, the Office sets its risk appetite as low and states that the Office’s risk tolerance is lower in relation to core activities, including managing and maintaining properties. Between 1 July 2023 and 30 April 2025, the ‘properties risk’ was reviewed four times. The risk rating for the ‘properties risk’ was outside the Office’s risk tolerance at all four reviews, meaning the Office has been operating outside its risk tolerance since at least July 2023. In November 2024, the pre-treatment risk rating was upgraded from ‘medium’ to ‘high’, with the post-treatment rating remaining at ‘medium’.

2.24 In November 2024, the Office identified 13 controls for the ‘properties risk’, including a landscape management plan, annual condition audits and surveys, capital projects identified in a property works plan, and reviews of Government House heritage values. Despite the Office operating outside its risk tolerance, controls were assessed as effective. The Office advised the ANAO in June 2025 that controls’ effectiveness is assessed by the Management Committee at biannual meetings to review the enterprise risk register. The Office did not retain minutes from these biannual meetings or other evidence to demonstrate the basis upon which effectiveness was determined.

2.25 The Office documented planned risk treatments at each review of the ‘properties risk’ to reduce the rating of the ‘properties risk’ to ‘medium’, with minor amendments and additions. Examples of treatments include seeking additional funding, reviewing Admiralty House heritage values and reviewing heritage management plans.

2.26 The Office’s management of the ‘properties risk’ partly aligns with its risk management framework.

• Some Office risk documentation states that the ‘properties risk’ is ‘within the acceptable risk tolerance level for this category of risk’ and that no additional treatments are required. The treatments identified by the Office do not reduce the residual risk rating to within the Office’s risk appetite of low.
• The risk management framework states that: risks rated high or above require Management Committee attention and are unacceptable risks that require reviews, strategies and mitigations. Management Committee papers and minutes from 1 July 2023 to 30 April 2025 do not document that the ‘properties risk’ received Management Committee attention, with one exception: the Property and Projects report to the April 2025 Management Committee meeting stated that one treatment (sourcing additional funding) was underway. This was five months after the rating increased to high.
• The treatments identified by the Office in November 2024 were retained from the previous review, where the target implementation date was 31 December 2024. None of the treatments had been implemented as at July 2025. The Office advised the ANAO in July 2025 that ‘risks cannot be treated due to resourcing constraints’.

2.27 Effective risk management leads to improved financial management, informed decision-making and improved organisational performance. A strong risk culture supports entities to effectively manage risks in an environment of resource constraints and competing priorities. Taking appropriate and timely action for risks outside of tolerance is an attribute of a positive risk management culture.²⁷

2.28 The Office’s system of documentation of enterprise risks requires risks that are shared with other entities to be identified. For Audit Committee meetings held between 1 July 2023 and 31 December 2023, where enterprise risk registers were provided to the committee, the Office recorded on the register whether or not enterprise risks were shared. For meetings from March 2024, this practice was discontinued. The ‘properties risk’ was not considered to be shared. Two other shared enterprise risks were identified, one of which was property-related²⁸: damage to people or property caused by physical security incident activity leads to failure to comply with legislation and workplace obligations. The Office considered that it shares this risk with the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Respective responsibilities for the management of this risk have not been documented.

Property Risk Register

2.29 The Office’s ‘Program Risk Register’ contains 18 risks and states that it was last reviewed by the ‘Property Project Team’ on 1 March 2025. Three of 18 risks have a residual rating of high following implementation of treatments. The risks relate to the deferral of projects, changes in COVID work restrictions, and the failure to deliver property works program projects quickly enough, due to funding, to address ‘the diminishing condition of the heritage buildings and other facilities due to insufficient maintenance over the asset lifecycle.’ The Office identified treatments for the risks, which included seeking additional funding, closer engagement with stakeholders, improving project planning and closer attention to property condition monitoring. Treatments were partly implemented for the three risks with a residual rating of high.

2.30 The Office advised the ANAO in August 2025 that the Program Risk Register would be discontinued.

Risk oversight and assurance

2.31 Between 1 July 2023 and 30 April 2025, the Management Committee considered risk reporting at its meetings and provided oversight of risk management (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1: Risk oversight by the Management Committee

Note a: Following the July 2024 meeting, the Official Secretary decided to cease ‘discussion’ meetings.

Source: ANAO analysis covering the period 1 July 2023 to 30 April 2025.

2.32 For Property Sub-committee meetings held between 1 January 2024 and 30 April 2025, available draft minutes²⁹ show that there was no standing agenda item on risk and the Property Risk Register was not tabled or discussed.³⁰

2.33 The Office commissioned an internal audit on risk management in 2023, which concluded that the Office had a developing level of maturity and identified weaknesses relating to risk ownership; risk context setting; risk analysis; assessment of controls; and risk evaluation. Nine recommendations were made, of which the Office agreed to two and ‘agreed in principle’ to seven. When the Office presented the internal audit report to the Audit Committee in March 2024, the Office noted concerns with ‘the appropriateness of recommendations when considering the scale of the Office’s resources and activities’. The Office does not produce closure reports for recommendations. The Office advised the ANAO in June 2025 that all nine recommendations were closed and that it considered that: what it already had in place was largely sufficient to address five recommendations; and the revised risk framework resolved the remaining four recommendations.

2.34 The Audit Committee Charter (August 2024) states that one of the committee’s responsibilities is to provide advice to the Official Secretary on the appropriateness of the Office’s system of risk oversight and management. The Office regularly provided to the Audit Committee: the enterprise risk register, which includes the Office’s ‘properties risk’; and papers from other governance bodies that include items on risk. During the course of its activities, the Audit Committee commented on or sought further information on aspects of the Office’s risk management arrangements. The Office did not consistently record these action items or act on the Audit Committee’s observations and requests.

2.35 The Audit Committee provided the Office’s accountable authority with letters of advice regarding the Office’s system of risk oversight and management. The Audit Committee concluded that the Office’s system of risk oversight and management as a whole was appropriate and complied with Section 16(a) of the PGPA Act for 2022–23 and 2023–24.

Is there fit-for-purpose planning for asset and heritage management?

2.38 An asset management policy should: be fit-for-purpose, documented and communicated to staff; establish an asset management framework; and include a commitment to meet applicable requirements.³¹ An asset management plan should specify the key activities, resources, costs and timelines required to achieve an entity’s asset management objectives.³²

Asset management policy and plans

2.39 The Office has: Accountable Authority Instructions on managing public property; an asset management policy (2015); and asset management-related standard operating procedures. The Office also has a strategy and plans related to heritage management.

Accountable Authority Instructions

2.40 The Official Secretary’s Accountable Authority Instructions (AAIs) on managing public property outline responsibilities and include procedures for procurement and acquisition (including through receipt of gifts and benefits), use and management, loss and recovery, and disposal of property. There are references to Commonwealth policies and other relevant internal policies and instructions on topics such as gifts, risk management, accountability, insurance and fraud control.

Asset management policy

2.41 The Office’s asset management policy was established in January 2015. The policy applies to all non-financial assets managed by the Office and covers registering, using, acquiring and disposing of assets. It is available to all staff on the Office’s intranet along with asset management flowcharts and training slides, which are based on the 2015 policy. The Office does not have a separate asset management plan; however, the policy largely meets the definition of a plan contained in AS ISO 55000:2024 (see paragraph 2.38).

2.42 The Office’s asset management policy aligns with the key elements outlined in AS ISO 55000:2024. However, as the policy has not been updated since 2015, some references to applicable requirements are outdated. The policy contains 34 requirements for managing non-financial assets. Of these, the ANAO found current practices: aligned with 23 requirements (68 per cent); partly aligned with nine requirements (26 per cent); and did not align with two requirements (six per cent). As an example of partial alignment, the policy states ‘portable and attractive’ assets must be added to a register for control purposes. This was not being done consistently (see paragraphs 3.12–3.15). The ANAO also observed instances of approvals being made by different responsible officers than those identified in the policy. The two areas where current practices did not align with the asset management policy are outlined below.

• The policy states inventory stocktakes will occur every six months each financial year. In practice, the Office conducts stocktakes once annually.
• The policy states that branches are to develop branch operational plans and team plans to complement the strategic plan. This was not being done.

Asset management procedures

2.43 The Office has 70 asset management-related standard operating procedures. Procedures relate to work health and safety (WHS) practices (22), property use and asset management (12), general maintenance and cleaning (10), heritage management (6), use of vehicles (5), and other (such as security, IT and management of contractors).

2.44 The oldest asset maintenance standard operating procedure was established in 2004 and the most recent was established in 2021, with 99 per cent (69 of 70) more than 10 years old. The procedures do not contain a requirement to be reviewed. Reviewing procedures at appropriate intervals helps ensure that an entity’s procedures are contemporary and meet regulatory requirements. Many of the procedures included the names and contact details of specific personnel rather than positions, increasing the chance that the information in the procedures will become outdated and inaccurate and lead to inefficiencies or errors.

Heritage management strategy and plans

Heritage strategy

2.46 As mentioned at paragraph 1.4, Government House and Admiralty House were added to the Commonwealth Heritage List in 2004 as ‘Commonwealth owned or controlled places with significant heritage value’.³³ The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (s341ZA) requires agencies to prepare a written heritage strategy for managing places to protect and conserve Commonwealth heritage values.³⁴ The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (EPBC Regulations) contain further requirements.

2.47 The Office prepared its first heritage strategy in 2006. As the EPBC Act requires a heritage strategy to be reviewed every three years, the 2006 strategy was due for review in 2009. The review was undertaken in 2015, when a revised heritage strategy was prepared covering the period 2015 to 2018. Of 18 required components under the EPBC Regulations, the 2015 heritage strategy fully addressed 13 and partly addressed five.

2.48 A review of the 2015 strategy was due in 2018. The Office started a review of the strategy in 2020, which was not finalised. The Office recommenced a review of the strategy in 2025. The Office submitted its 2025 draft heritage strategy for consultation to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) on 31 July 2025.

2.49 Under the EPBC Act, entities are required to prepare a report for the Minister for the Environment and Water (the Minister) every three years³⁵ on their review of the heritage strategy. If the reviews of the heritage strategy had been prepared on schedule, the Minister would have received six reports from the Office between 2009 and 2025. The Office prepared a report on its unfinished 2020 review of the 2015 heritage strategy; however, the report was not finalised or submitted to the Minister. The Office has not prepared any reports for the Minister on the heritage strategy since the first strategy was prepared in 2006.

Heritage management plans

2.50 The EPBC Act requires agencies to establish a heritage management plan for Commonwealth Heritage places.³⁶ The EPBC Regulations set out requirements for heritage management plans, including what must be addressed and that plans must be reviewed every five years. In addition, according to the EPBC Regulations and the DCCEEW guide Working Together: Managing Commonwealth Heritage Places, A guide for Commonwealth Agencies:

Heritage management plans for Commonwealth Heritage listed places are legislative instruments for the Purposes of the [Legislation Act 2003]. This means that once a plan is made by a responsible Commonwealth agency under section 341S, it must be registered as a legislative instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation (Register) as soon as practicable (s.4 of the Legislation Act). Otherwise, the [entity] may not be compliant with its obligations under the EPBC Act.

2.51 The Office established heritage management plans for Government House and Admiralty House in 2009 and 2010, respectively.³⁷ Although plans existed, there were deficiencies.

• The Office had not reviewed the plans since they were established.
• The 2009 and 2010 plans addressed most of the content requirements, but did not explain how implementation would be monitored for Admiralty House, or how guidance to manage heritage values could be improved.
• Some of the information in the plans was no longer relevant, particularly relating to the condition of heritage values, management goals, and policies.
• The plans were not established under section 341S as they were not reviewed by DCCEEW or endorsed by the Australian Heritage Council.
• The plans had not been registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.

Note a: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Review of the National Heritage List and Commonwealth Heritage List: 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023, 2023.

Note b: Since June 2023, four places had been delisted. As at April 2025 there were 384 places on the Commonwealth Heritage List.

Note c: Percentages do not add up to 100 per cent due to rounding.

Source: ANAO analysis of Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water, Review of the National Heritage List and Commonwealth Heritage List: 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023, Canberra, 2024, pp. 34–35.

Landscape heritage management plans

2.54 The Office has a landscape heritage management plan for Government House that was established in 2010, covering the period 2010 to 2015. As at July 2025, it had not been updated. The plan comprises 13 topics including a ‘garden master plan’, tree management, memorial plantings, garden bed management, turf management, irrigation, hard landscape features, parking, and a long term works plan.

2.55 The Office does not have a landscape heritage management plan for Admiralty House, but it does have a ‘landscape program’, established in 2006 (of no set duration). The Admiralty House landscape program outlines, at a higher level than for Government House, the maintenance works to be undertaken each year for each precinct of the property. It states that it sets ‘landscape principles’ for the ‘conservation and heritage values’ of Admiralty House, but it does not outline principles or values and has not been updated, including since the heritage values for Admiralty House were set out in the 2010 heritage management plan.

3.1 The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) requires the proper use and management of public resources, including assets and property. ‘Proper use’ is defined as ‘efficient, effective, economical and ethical’. The ANAO examined whether assets, including the official properties, have been registered, conserved and maintained effectively.

Have assets been registered appropriately?

The Office has asset registers, which have been appropriately updated, except in relation to gifts received by Office staff or the Governor-General. Official gifts are not registered as portable and attractive items in accordance with Office policy. Record-keeping for gifts could be improved. The Office’s gifts and benefits policy could be strengthened to consider security. In 2024–25, the Office did not publicly report the giver of gifts, despite Australian Public Service Commission guidance to do so.

3.2 In order to effectively manage assets, an entity needs an inventory or register outlining which assets it is managing, with details on the attributes of these assets. An effective asset register keeps financial and non-financial information over each asset’s life cycle for the purposes of planning; accounting and legislative compliance; and performance monitoring.

Non-current assets

3.3 The Office’s asset management policy defines ‘non-current assets’ as items expected to be used in more than one financial year, with an initial cost of at least $3,000. The policy states that all non-current assets must be maintained on an asset register and for the asset register to be managed on an accurate and timely basis.

3.4 The Office maintains a fixed asset register that lists non-current assets by category and asset number and includes financial information for accounting purposes. The fixed asset register includes the Office’s land and buildings, IT equipment³⁸, furniture, kitchen and gardening equipment, tableware and motor vehicles (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Fixed asset example, 1970 Rolls-Royce (Phantom VI)

Source: ANAO, 13 February 2025.

Portable and attractive items

3.5 The asset management policy states that ‘the Office shall maintain a separate category of items which, by virtue of their attractiveness and portability are at risk of being stolen, are classified as portable and attractive’. This includes ‘items such as IT equipment, other electronic devices, cameras, power tools, artwork, antiques, etc’. The Office’s gifts and benefits policy states ‘any gifts or benefits surrendered will be considered to be property of the Office and will be treated as portable and attractive items’. The Office maintains a portable and attractive items register, which contains items whose initial cost was between $250 and $3,000. While a portable and attractive items register is maintained, it is incomplete (see paragraph 3.14).

Third party assets

3.6 The Office has paintings, sculptures, furniture and other items for public display at Government House and Admiralty House that are on loan from the Australiana Fund³⁹, the National Gallery of Australia, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, the Australian War Memorial, and the Department of Parliamentary Services (Figure 3.2: Yarralumla (‘Dad’s’) cabinet, on loan from the Australiana Fund). The Office keeps a record of these pieces in a database and through individual loan agreements.

Figure 3.2: Yarralumla (‘Dad’s’) cabinet, on loan from the Australiana Fund

Source: ANAO, 13 February 2025.

Gifted assets

Gifts policy

3.7 The Office’s Accountable Authority Instructions (2019) include gifts in the definition of ‘relevant property’ that is covered by Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) (section 15) ‘proper use of public resources’ requirements. The instructions state that all assets and portable and attractive items must be reported internally through an ‘asset addition form’ at the time of acquisition.

3.8 The Office established a gifts and benefits policy in 2015, which was updated in July 2020, July 2024, October 2024 and April 2025. The July 2020 gift policy stated that for gifts retained by the Office, the Office should ‘assign [an] asset number (if to be registered as a portable and attractive item or otherwise registered as an asset)’. The October 2024 and April 2025 gift policies state any gifts or benefits surrendered to the Office by the Governor-General or staff of the Office will be considered to be property of the Office and will be treated as portable and attractive items.⁴⁰

3.9 The gift policy does not discuss security in relation to gifts, other than for gifted electronic devices, which it states should be destroyed. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) Annual Threat Assessment 2025 stated:

multiple countries are relentlessly seeking information about our military capabilities. Defence personnel are being targeted in person and online. Some were recently given gifts by international counterparts. The presents contained concealed surveillance devices.⁴¹

Registering gifts

3.11 The July 2020 version of the gifts and benefits policy, which applied to gifts received in 2023–24, included an ‘official gift reporting form’ for gifts (worth over $100) presented to the Governor-General (or spouse). The form required a description of the gift, date of receipt, name of giver, and estimated value. The form contained a workflow for approval, which included that the Chief Financial Officer assign gifts (that were retained by the Office) an asset number.

3.12 A key requirement of the National Archives of Australia’s (NAA’s) 2021 Building Trust policy (see paragraph 2.12) is that entities ‘reduce areas of information management inefficiency and risk’ which includes that entities ‘work digitally by default and manage information in digital format’.⁴² The Office did not hold digital records of gift forms for 2023–24. The ANAO reviewed the Office’s hardcopy gift forms for 2023–24 and found that these records, in addition to not meeting NAA policy for being in a digital format, were incomplete and inaccurate.

3.13 Hardcopy gift forms and gift registers showed that 11 gifts over $100 had been retained by the Office in 2023–24 and seven gifts over $100 were retained by the Office in the first two quarters of 2024–25. The two highest value gifts received in 2023–24 were a Legacy ceremonial torch, valued at $10,000, and a Herend tea set, valued at $5,000. There were hardcopy gift forms for both items, which were incomplete and did not include asset numbers. The hardcopy gift forms stated that the gifts were retained by the Office (with the Legacy torch on public display and the Herend tea set in storage). In July 2025, the ANAO confirmed the Legacy torch was on display at Government House. The Office advised the ANAO in July 2025 that contrary to the hardcopy gift form, the Herend tea set was not in storage. The Office produced email records that showed that the tea set had been purchased by the former Governor-General. The purchase was in accordance with the gifts and benefits policy.

3.14 None of the gifted assets retained by the Office (during the period examined) were recorded in the fixed asset register or the register for portable and attractive items.

Gift reporting

3.15 Officials have a duty under the PGPA Act to not improperly use their position to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or an advantage (section 27) and to disclose details of personal interests (section 29). Acceptance of a gift or benefit can create a real or apparent conflict of interest that should be disclosed.⁴³

3.16 The October 2024 and April 2025 policies state that the Office had adopted Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) guidance on gifts and benefits. The July 2020 gifts policy (current in 2023–24) required that gifts to the Governor-General valued at over $100 be publicly disclosed annually. The October 2024 and April 2025 policies required that gifts and benefits over $100 be publicly disclosed: on a quarterly basis for gifts to the Official Secretary and staff; and annually for gifts to the Governor-General and spouse.

3.17 The Office has published on its website registers of gifts and benefits received by: the Official Secretary and Office staff since January 2020; and the Governor-General (and spouse) since July 2024. There was no public reporting on Governor-General gifts and benefits between 2019–20 and 2023–24.⁴⁴ To meet the policy intent, information on the giver of a gift or benefit should be included when disclosing a gift or benefit and APSC guidance includes a gift register template containing a column to report the gift giver.⁴⁵ The public registers for 2023–24 (which were for the Official Secretary and staff) included a column to disclose who the gift was ‘presented by’, which aligns with APSC guidance. The public registers for 2024–25 (for the Governor-General and/or spouse, the Official Secretary and staff) do not disclose the giver.

Have properties been conserved and maintained appropriately?

Conservation of heritage properties

3.20 The Office undertakes an annual condition assessment of property elements with high, moderate and no heritage significance. For 2023–24: 53 (62 per cent) of all 86 property elements were assessed as being in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition, with the remaining 33 elements (38 per cent) in ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ condition. Of the 45 property elements of high heritage significance, 34 (76 per cent) were self-assessed as being in very good or good condition (Figure 3.3). This includes the main Government House building, which was assessed as being in ‘good’ condition and the main Admiralty House building, which was assessed as being in ‘very good’ condition.

Figure 3.3: Condition of property elements, by heritage significance, 2023–24

Source: ANAO analysis.

3.21 A heritage management plan commissioned by the Office in 2009 for Government House included a condition assessment conducted by Lovell Chen Architects and Heritage Consultants for 14 property elements, including eight of high heritage significance. A 2010 Admiralty House plan did not include condition ratings by element. For the eight high heritage items in the 2009 Government House heritage management plan, the assessed condition has stayed at the same level or improved between 2009 and 2023–24. The full list of elements of high heritage significance in 2023–24, the Office’s self-assessed condition in 2023–24, and the 2009 heritage condition of Government House elements (where assessed) is at Appendix 3.

3.22 The Office forecasts the condition of its property elements will deteriorate in forward years. The Office’s 2024–25 corporate plan had declining targets for the condition of property elements, with the target for the condition of all property elements set at 65 per cent being in good (or better) condition by 2027–28 (see paragraph 4.5).

3.23 An independent review of the Office, which was commissioned by PM&C and released in August 2025, concluded in relation to property management:

The property team manage complexities very well within current constraints, but given current funding levels and limitations in capacity, the focus is understandably on patching existing problems rather than taking a strategic view. While the current activity is sufficient to allow such planning to be postposed year to year, delay does increase the risk of further significant degradation.⁴⁶

3.24 The Office advised the ANAO in February 2025 that its maintenance approach (see paragraphs 3.46–3.47) has meant it reacts to issues when they arise, rather than investing to conserve heritage values, and that it intends to adopt a more considered approach in 2025.

Implementation of heritage strategy and heritage management plans

3.25 As set out at paragraphs 2.46–2.56, the Office has a heritage strategy (2015) and heritage management plans (2009 and 2010). The Office advised the ANAO in February 2025 that its heritage management plans have not been fully implemented, but that it uses information in the plans as a ‘reference’ (for example, to identify the ‘level of significance’ of the properties’ features and structures). The Office has partly implemented the heritage management plans. For example, the 2010 heritage management plan for Admiralty House made six recommendations for the Marine Barracks, of which one was implemented (Case Study 1).

Case study 1. Admiralty House Marine Barracks

The Marine Barracks (Barracks) is a building on the grounds of Admiralty House. It was constructed between 1855 and 1859 as part of the Sydney Harbour defence strategy and was designed to complement existing defence structures at Fort Macquarie and Dawes Point. It generally operated as a separate element from the rest of the Admiralty House site. It is one of two fortifications that remain. The Barracks is categorised as having ‘exceptional significance’ and the Barracks precinct is categorised as having high significance to the heritage values of Admiralty House in the 2010 heritage management plan. Conservation of its architectural and cultural value is included as a general conservation policy in the plan. The heritage management plan stated that the building was under-used and its setting not well suited for encouraging usage. The plan also noted that usage involves considering legislative requirements such as the Disability Discrimination Act, which could require the construction of additional access arrangements to buildings and may impact the fabric of existing buildings at Admiralty House. The 2010 heritage management plan made six recommendations for the Barracks, including to retain and conserve the presentation and fabric of the building, undertake remedial works on stonework, and determine a strategy to repair damage to the Barracks caused by the root system of a nearby fig tree. In November 2018, the fig tree and root system that were damaging the stonework were removed. A proposal for the restoration of the external stonework was included in the property works program in July 2024. As at February 2025, this proposed project did not have a priority rating. The property works program notes that the Barracks has no functional purpose that would support the allocation of funds to the project. As at July 2025, five of six recommendations had not been addressed. The Barracks remains in ‘poor’ condition according to the Office’s 2024 condition self-assessment. Source: ANAO, 1 April 2025.

Budget management and prioritisation

3.26 The Office’s 2024–25 corporate plan states that given the age and heritage values of the properties, ‘ongoing investment of resources’ is required ‘to ensure the Office meets its obligations to maintain the houses for the Australian public’. In 2023–24, the Office spent about $4.5 million on asset maintenance and capital expenses, comprising: $1.133 million on supplier expenses for property maintenance; $417,000 in departmental capital budget (DCB); and $2.924 million in administered capital budget (ACB).⁴⁷ This represents about 17 per cent of the Office’s total resourcing of $26.234 million for 2023–24. The Office’s 2024–25 portfolio budget statements allocated $425,000 in DCB and $3.135 million in ACB. This represents about 12 per cent of the Office’s total resourcing of $30.162 million for 2024–25.⁴⁸

3.27 The Office’s 2024–25 corporate plan stated that the Office has ‘robust practices, procedures and governance’ to ‘prioritise identified [ACB] projects having regard to: the current and desired condition of all property assets; their utilisation, and the functional business needs of the assets’. The corporate plan also states that the Office expects the condition of the properties to reduce in the coming years ‘due to available resource allocation’.

3.28 The Office maintains a ‘Property Works Program — ACB Forward Plan’ (property works program), which documents the nature and status of works and maintenance projects to be funded under the ACB. As at February 2025, the property works program included 217 projects. Of these, 100 did not record the creation date of the project. The creation dates for the remaining 117 projects and proposed projects ranged between July 2022 and February 2025, including 21 projects created in 2023–24 and 51 projects created in 2024–25 (as at February 2025). Of the 217 projects, 11 were identified as relating to a property element of high heritage significance. All 11 projects were created on 1 July 2024. As at February 2025, the status of one high heritage project involving the Admiral’s Steps at Admiralty House was ‘underway’ and the status for the remaining 10 projects was ‘proposed’.

3.29 The Office’s property works program outlines prioritisation criteria, to be scored as critical (3), important (2), low (1) or default (0) for each project, and then weighted to arrive at a priority ranking (0–100) and priority rating of low, medium or high (Figure 3.4). If the prioritisation process is undertaken after a project is already underway or the Office deems it to be ‘high priority’ (regardless of the scoring), it is assigned a priority ranking score of 100 and a rating of high, overriding all of the other criteria (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4: Property works project prioritisation process

Source: ANAO analysis.

3.30 The prioritisation procedure outlined in the property works program is not consistently applied and projects are not undertaken based on the assigned priorities. Out of the 217 projects in the property works program, 55 were recorded as completed. Of these, 28 (51 per cent) had not been assessed for priority level, 12 (22 per cent) had been prioritised as ‘high’ and 15 (27 per cent) had been prioritised as medium or low (Figure 3.5). None of the 55 completed projects related to a property element of high heritage significance.

Figure 3.5: Property works program projects, by status and priority level, 2022–23 to 2024–25^a

Note a: Projects created between July 2022 and February 2025.

Source: ANAO analysis.

3.31 Of all 19 ‘high priority’ projects underway, completed, on hold or cancelled, 17 were rated as high because of the priority override (see paragraph 3.29). Without this override, the ANAO determined that eight of the projects would have been rated as ‘low’ priority and nine would have been rated as ‘medium’ priority. None of these 19 ‘high priority’ projects related to an element of high heritage significance.

3.32 The Property and Projects Branch provides a report on the property works program and ACB spending at Property Sub-committee meetings. These reports do not include the priority level of the projects. The August 2024 report outlined how it intended to spend the $3.1 million in ACB funding. This included 19 projects, of which 12 were underway and seven were on hold. The report included one large renovation project at Government House, with a budget of $3 million, which was continued from 2023–24 (Case study 2).

Training on heritage management

3.35 The Office’s 2015 Heritage Strategy states:

The Office acknowledges the requirement for staff to be trained about Commonwealth heritage obligations and best practice in heritage management.^[49] Training courses relating to heritage, conservation and the protection of a place’s significant values may be made available to key Office staff as part of continuing professional development schemes.

3.36 The Office’s 2024–25 corporate plan states that members of the property team ‘undergo specific training including … heritage management’. The Office does not offer heritage training to its staff. The Office advised the ANAO in February 2025 that no current staff members had undertaken heritage management training.

Horticulture maintenance

3.38 Of Government House’s 53 hectares, 20 are managed as irrigated grounds (gardens and turf). The Office refers to unirrigated grounds as ‘dryland’. The irrigated grounds are maintained by the Office’s nine horticultural staff. For Government House, the Office has a landscape heritage management plan (see paragraph 2.51), horticulture schedules, turf management schedules, and a ‘horticultural forward plan’ (2022). For the two-hectare Admiralty House property, the Office prepared a landscape program in 2006 (see paragraph 2.55) and seasonal horticultural schedules between 2012 and 2014.

3.39 At Government House, there are approximately 600 trees within the irrigated grounds and 1,300 within the dryland, with some estimated to be about 400 years old. The Office did not establish a tree management plan for Government House until June 2025. Prior to this, the Office had an undated ‘Trees in Landscaped Areas and Dryland’ best practice document that outlined ‘how to maintain, preserve and protect, and enhance tree health’. The Office advised the ANAO in March 2025 that there was no tree management plan for Admiralty House.

3.40 The June 2025 Government House tree management plan outlines that tree inspections are to be undertaken with the assistance of a qualified arborist to determine and monitor tree health, with inspections to be conducted annually for most zones.

3.41 The Office procures tree management services. AusTender reporting shows two contracts in 2023–24 for arborist services and tree assessments worth a combined $76,128; and five contracts in 2024–25 for tree maintenance and tree management system worth a combined $151,848.

• The Office commissioned Civica Pty Limited (Civica) to conduct an assessment of 580 trees at Government House in March 2024 for $12,128 (AusTender reference CN4042837).
• Between 1 July 2024 and 3 March 2025, the Office did not have a contract in place for a tree management system.
• The Office executed a two-year contract with Civica for a ‘tree management system’ on 3 March 2025 for $79,398 (AusTender reference CN4149604). Under this contract, Civica conducted an assessment of 63 trees in March 2025. The assessment report identified 13 high risk trees⁵⁰ and 50 medium risk trees⁵¹ and recommended that two of the high risk trees be removed. Both trees’ probability of failure was ‘certain’ with a ‘moderate’ consequence. As at July 2025, the two high risk trees recommended for removal had not been removed.
• The Office advised the ANAO in April 2025 that it also conducts tree inspections following a significant weather event or before a special event, such as an Open Day.

3.42 On 19 February 2025, a tree branch fell from a eucalyptus tree (tree 349) located at the entrance to Government House, causing serious injury. The Office’s WHS Manager determined this to be a notifiable incident under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Tree 349 was last assessed in July 2022, when the arborist rated the tree as medium risk and recommended that deadwood be removed.⁵² Office records of tree works are not complete and records for tree 349 do not include whether this recommended work was undertaken. On 20 February 2025, the day following the incident, an arborist commissioned by the Office found bird browsing damage and undertook weight reduction. The March 2025 Civica tree assessment report stated that the risk rating for tree 349 remained at ‘medium’⁵³, with the arborist recommending that further deadwood be removed. The Office had further deadwood removed from tree 349 on 15 and 20 March 2025, as recommended.

3.43 The 5 April 2025 Government House Open Day was postponed until the high risk tree works could be completed. As at July 2025, works had not been completed and no new date for the Open Day had been set. As at October 2025, a Government House Open Day had been scheduled for 1 November 2025.

3.44 In August 2025, the Office published a Notice of Works on its website stating that between August 2025 and August 2026, security fence replacement works would be undertaken at Government House, involving the removal and replacement of 150 to 300 trees.⁵⁴

Property maintenance

3.45 The Property Services Coordinated Procurement Arrangements (Property Service Arrangements) were announced in 2016, to provide a whole-of-Australian-Government (WoAG) approach to the delivery of leasing and facilities management services for Commonwealth entities (Table 3.1). The Property Service Arrangements are mandatory for all non-corporate Commonwealth entities and are part of the Commonwealth Property Management Framework.⁵⁵

Table 3.1: Roles and responsibilities under Property Services Arrangements

Note a: Payment for services received was not examined in this audit.

Source: ANAO Analysis of Department of Finance, Property Services Coordinated Procurement [Internet], Finance, https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/policy/property-services-coordinated-procurement [accessed 12 May 2025].

Engagement with property service provider

3.46 The Department of Finance (Finance) assigned property service provider Jones Lang LaSalle (ACT) Pty Ltd (JLL) to the Office. JLL managed the Office’s preventative and reactive maintenance for ‘fixed maintainable assets’ from 2019 to 2025.⁵⁶

• Preventative maintenance — The Office had planned preventative maintenance schedules for Government House and Admiralty House, managed through a JLL-managed system called Corrigo.⁵⁷ Maintenance schedules included work classified as critical, minimum standard, statutory, preventative or recurring. The planned tasks were set up to maintain equipment for (among other things): heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); fire safety; hot water; water treatment; and electrical safety.
• Reactive (run-to-fail) maintenance⁵⁸ — The Office created work orders through Corrigo for reactive maintenance. Services included: building repair; lighting; plumbing; painting; HVAC and electrical repair; cleaning; and pest control.

3.47 In August 2024, JLL provided the Office with an annual ‘asset management report’, which noted the Office’s mixed reactive (run to fail) and preventative maintenance approach and included analysis on ‘maintenance effectiveness’. ⁵⁹ JLL stated that reactive maintenance costs of less than 60 per cent of total costs were effective (for items on the Office’s preventative maintenance program). The report identified seven HVAC assets where reactive maintenance costs exceeded 60 per cent of total maintenance costs (ranging from 62 to 90 per cent). JLL stated that this could be an indicator of: asset deterioration; insufficient maintenance; ineffective maintenance; high reactive costs; low preventative maintenance costs; and/or another reason. JLL investigated the seven assets and determined no further follow-up was needed. JLL advised the ANAO in October 2025 that in 2023–24, the Office had elected to decrease maintenance/service frequencies, which reduced the percentage spent on preventative servicing versus reactive maintenance. The August 2024 report included 10-year asset replacement forecasting.

Performance management of property service provider

3.48 The WoAG contract between Finance and JLL (JLL contract) outlines that JLL must provide the services so as to meet or exceed the service levels and specified timeframes. The JLL contract outlines response times by priority level for reactive maintenance (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2: Reactive maintenance definitions and response times, by priority level

Note a: The JLL contract states ‘It is expected that jobs are closed out (completed) as soon as is practicable after the rectification of the fault’. A ‘WoAG work order priorities’ document also outlines expected completion times.

Source: ANAO analysis.

3.49 The ANAO examined the timeliness of completion for all planned and reactive maintenance work orders from 1 July 2023 to 30 April 2025.

• For planned maintenance, the ANAO examined all 632 planned tasks for Government House and 263 planned tasks for Admiralty House. On average, across all types of work orders, between 75 and 87 per cent of planned maintenance tasks were reported as completed by the due date, depending on the site and year.
• For reactive maintenance, the ANAO examined all 322 reactive work orders for Government House and 88 reactive work orders for Admiralty House. On average, across all priority levels, between 64 per cent and 74 per cent of reactive work orders were completed by the due date.

3.50 Although the majority of reactive work orders were reported completed by the ‘due date’, the ANAO found that ‘due dates’ were changed by JLL throughout the evolution of a work order. While there might be a legitimate reason to set a new expected completion date for active management of the work orders (including scheduled functions and ceremonies at the official residences and availability of relevant buildings), overwriting ‘due dates’ makes this data meaningless for performance monitoring and reporting purposes (Case study 3).

3.51 Using the original expected completion time at the time the work order was established, the actual completion times were longer than expected for priority levels one to four in 2024–25. For priority level five, average completion times were within the expected 15 days, but there were instances of work orders taking up to 72 business days to completion (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3: Average and maximum completion times for reactive work orders, 2024–25^a

Note a: To 30 April 2025.

Source: ANAO analysis of work orders from 1 July 2024 to 30 April 2025.

3.52 The JLL contracts state that ‘A failure to achieve the Service Level may result in the Management Fee and Additional Ongoing Services Fee being reduced’. The Office advised the ANAO in July 2025 that this clause had not been invoked.

3.53 The WoAG contract between Finance and JLL outlines that JLL must:

• implement measuring and monitoring tools and procedures that are capable of measuring the service provider’s performance against service levels on a continuous basis; and
• keep accurate and auditable records relating to performance.

3.54 JLL provided a quarterly operational report to the Office, which included self-assessments on work order performance (covering performance of sub-contracted service providers, performance of preventative and reactive maintenance work orders, and discussion of compliance risk). For 2023–24 and the first three quarters of 2024–25, the Office held records for five of seven quarterly operational reports. The Office engaged regularly with JLL by email and telephone and met with JLL approximately quarterly to discuss operational requirements and JLL’s quarterly report.

3.55 JLL quarterly reports identified: no outstanding work orders for 2023–24⁶⁰; and one ‘overdue’ work order for the first three quarters of 2024–25. This is not consistent with the number of work orders that were overdue in this period when analysed on an annual basis, even when based on the modified ‘JLL-adjusted’ due dates over this period, as recorded in Corrigo (Table 3.4).⁶¹ There is evidence of the Office discussing these reports with JLL.

Table 3.4: Number of reactive work orders, completed 15+ days after the ‘JLL-adjusted’^a due date, 2023–24 and 2024–25

Note a: ‘JLL-adjusted’ due date is the final due date entered in the Corrigo system, which could have been changed multiple times from the original due date.

Note b: To 30 April 2025.

Source: ANAO analysis of work orders from 1 July 2023 to 30 April 2025.

3.56 The actual number of delayed works is higher than reflected in Table 3.4, if original due dates were used for the calculation. Inaccurate performance information could affect the Office’s asset decision-making, risk management and achievement of value-for-money.

3.58 The Office is required under Finance’s WoAG arrangements to ‘provide feedback to Finance on the PSP’s performance’. As at May 2025, the Office provided feedback to Finance as required in 2023–24 and in 2024–25 (Table 3.5). The Office rated JLL performance on the service level for ‘properties maintained to an acceptable standard and service requests are responded to within agreed timeframes’ as ‘below expectations’ for the period July to December 2024.

Table 3.5: Office feedback to Finance on JLL performance, July 2023 to December 2024

Key: ■ Meets expectations (9.1 to 10) ■ Meets most expectations (7.6 to 9) ■ Below expectations (7.5 or below).

Source: ANAO analysis.

4.1 Effective performance measurement, monitoring and reporting is a key aspect of good governance and accountability, including for asset management.⁶² Indicators of an organisation’s asset management maturity include: having accurate information about its assets to underpin performance measures; integrating asset management into its overall management and monitoring system; and reporting internally and externally on performance.⁶³

Has asset-related performance been effectively measured and monitored?

4.2 Sections 16E and 16EA of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 (the PGPA Rule) outline that performance measures included in an Australian Government entity’s corporate plan meet requirements if, in the context of the entity’s key activities and purposes, they (among other things):

• relate directly to one or more of the entity’s purposes or key activities;
• use information and methodologies that are reliable and verifiable;
• provide an unbiased basis for the measurement and assessment of the entity’s performance;
• provide a basis for an assessment of the entity’s performance over time; and
• have specified targets, where reasonably practicable.

Performance measures

External measures

4.3 The Office’s 2023–24 and 2024–25 corporate plans outline its purpose as the facilitation of the performance of the Governor-General’s role through the organisation and management of official duties, management and maintenance of the official households and properties, and administration of the Australian honours and awards system. The 2023–24 corporate plan listed 20 performance measures, of which four related to the Office’s key activity ‘management and maintenance of the official properties’ (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: 2023–24 Corporate Plan performance measures and targets for ‘management and maintenance of the official properties’

Note a: The ANAO took the combined information from the columns ‘key measurement’ and ‘measurement description’ to be the performance measures.

Source: ANAO analysis of the Office’s 2023–24 corporate plan.

4.4 The 2024–25 corporate plan listed a total of seven performance measures across the Office’s three key activities, including two measures for the ‘management and maintenance of the official properties’ (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: 2024–25 Corporate Plan performance measures and targets for ‘management and maintenance of the official properties’

Note a: The corporate plan had a footnote stating, ‘condition reduction expected due to available resource allocation’.

Source: ANAO analysis of the Office’s 2024–25 corporate plan.

4.5 The 2023–24 property condition measure (ensure the Official Residences are in an appropriate condition for their heritage value and to support the role of the Governor-General) was an ‘effectiveness’ measure⁶⁴ (Table 4.1). The description of the 2024–25 property condition measure was unclear whether the measure was an output measure (the undertaking of condition assessments) or an effectiveness measure (achievement of the intended outcome) (Table 4.2). The 2024–25 property condition measure targets also lacked clarity. The Office advised the ANAO in August 2025 that the intention of the 2024–25 property condition measure and target was unchanged and that it was to be read as an outcome measure of the ‘percentage of property elements that are at the required condition level for their heritage significance’. The target for this measure was reduced from 80 per cent in 2024–25 to 65 per cent in 2027–28 (Table 4.2), with a footnote that stated ‘condition reduction expected due to available resource allocation’.

4.6 The ANAO assessed the four 2023–24 and two 2024–25 performance measures and targets relating to the ‘management and maintenance of the official properties’ against requirements of the PGPA Rule 16E and 16EA (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Assessment of corporate plan performance measures and targets for ‘management and maintenance of official properties’, 2023–24 and 2024–25

Key: ● Met for all measures ◕ Met for majority of measures ◑ Met for half of measures ◔ Met for some but less than half of measures ◯ Not met for any measures

Note a: Insufficient records to assess three of the four measures. The assessment was based on the one measure where records existed, which was at risk of self-assessment bias.

Note b: Insufficient records to assess one of the two measures. The assessment was based on the one measure where records existed.

Note c: The Office’s performance measures were different in 2021–22, so there had not been a basis for assessment over time from 2021–22 to 2022–23. See Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, 2021–22 Corporate Plan, pp. 17–19.

Source: ANAO analysis of the Office’s 2023–24 and 2024–25 corporate plans.

Internal measures

4.9 In addition to the performance measures outlined in the corporate plan, the Office established internal performance measures in relation to the key activity ‘management of the official properties’ for 2024–25 (Table 4.4). The measures were similar to the external measures that had been in the Office’s 2023–24 corporate plan. These were first presented to the Audit Committee in December 2024.

Table 4.4: Internal performance measures, 2024–25

Note a: This measure does not appear in reporting for quarter 2 of 2024–25.

Note b: This component of the measure does not appear in reporting for quarter 2 of 2024–25.

Source: ANAO presentation of information provided by the Office to the Audit Committee.

4.10 The 2024–25 internal targets for the condition of the properties were lower (at 60 to 75 per cent) than the equivalent target in the 2024–25 corporate plan, which was 80 per cent on average (Tables 4.2 and Table 4.4). The inconsistency creates a lack of clarity for staff and external stakeholders about which target the Office is aiming for.

Monitoring of performance

4.12 The Office established an internal performance management framework in March 2024. The framework requires: monthly performance information to be provided to the Management Committee; and the completion of quarterly performance reports, which are signed off by the Management Committee and presented to the Audit Committee.⁶⁵ Internal performance measures related to asset management were monitored through existing governance mechanisms, comprising:

• Management Committee: quarterly traffic light reports on performance measures, monthly performance scorecards on whether measures were on track (from February 2024), and branch updates on performance and deliverables; and
• Property Sub-committee: progress updates on individual projects, with monitoring of financial performance against planned spend.

4.13 For the period 1 July 2023 to 30 April 2025, the Office did not hold: two of six quarterly reports; three of 17 performance scorecards; or records of Property Sub-committee meetings between July and September 2023.

4.14 The Audit Committee’s terms of reference state that it is required to review the Office’s compliance with mandatory requirements of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and PGPA Rule to assess the appropriateness of the Office’s performance reporting. The Audit Committee must also provide the accountable authority with written advice on whether the Office’s: performance reporting requirements are appropriate and comply with requirements; and performance reporting as a whole is appropriate. The Audit Committee provided this advice in 2023–24 and for the 2024–25 corporate plan and found the Office’s performance information and reporting was appropriate.

Has there been effective public reporting of asset-related performance?

Corporate plan

4.15 Section 16E of the PGPA Rule sets out that an entity’s corporate plan must include (among other things): the purposes of the entity; the key activities that the entity will undertake to achieve its purposes; specified performance measures that meet the requirements of section 16EA of the PGPA Rule; and specified targets for each performance measure (where reasonably practicable).

4.16 The Office’s corporate plans in 2023–24 and 2024–25 included most mandatory content requirements: the entity’s purpose and key activities were outlined. Performance measures and targets were stated; however, the performance measures and targets did not meet the requirements of section 16EA of the PGPA Rule (Table 4.3) and therefore did not fully meet the requirements of section 16E. The 2023–24 corporate plan included additional information (performance criteria, primary stakeholders and objectives), and referred to ‘key measurements’, and ‘measurement descriptions’, which together were considered to be the Office’s performance measures. Extraneous information and inconsistent terminology reduced the clarity of the performance information. Except for the lack of clarity associated with the property condition measure and target in 2024–25 (see paragraph 4.5), the readability of performance information improved in the 2024–25 corporate plan.

Annual performance statements

4.17 Section 16F of the PGPA Rule states:

In preparing the annual performance statements for a Commonwealth entity for a reporting period, the accountable authority of the entity must measure and assess the entity’s performance in achieving the entity’s purposes in the reporting period in accordance with the method of measuring and assessing the entity’s performance in the reporting period that was set out in the entity’s corporate plan, and in any Portfolio Budget Statement, Portfolio Additional Estimates Statement or other portfolio estimates statement, that were prepared for the reporting period.

4.18 The ANAO examined the Office’s 2023–24 annual performance statements and found they met all mandatory content requirements for the entity’s purpose, key activities, performance measures and targets. In accordance with section 16F of the PGPA Rule, the 2023–24 annual performance statements reported the results of each of the Office’s eight performance targets (for the four asset-related measures). The Office reported that it had met five of the eight targets for the management of official residences. Three targets were reported as not fully met.

• One target was reported as ‘partially met’ (‘Deliver first stage of the [Carbon emissions] Action Plan’), with the annual performance statements noting that ‘the Office has identified new projects and initiatives as required under the Action Plan; however, they have not yet been approved and implemented’.
• Two targets were reported as ‘not met’ (‘Heritage Strategy reviewed with respect to EPBC Act, approved and published’ and ‘The Office will review the heritage values for Admiralty House’).

4.19 Records to verify that the Office met targets were available for three of the five targets (Table 4.3). One result was inaccurately reported as ‘100 [per cent] of property elements with High Heritage Significance were kept at a condition level rating of ‘good’ or ’better’ against a target of 70 per cent’. Internal documentation recorded a result of 76 per cent. The PGPA Rule (subsection 17AH(e)) states that where a previous annual report for the entity contains any significant statement on a matter of fact which has proved to be wrong in a material respect, information correcting the record must be included in the annual report.

Clear and consistent reporting

4.21 Annual performance statements should include information that demonstrates the connection between the portfolio budget statements (PBS), corporate plan and annual performance statements to enable a clear and consistent read across the three documents.⁶⁶ It is good practice for entities to set out the discussion of performance in their annual performance statements in the same order as the corporate plan, reinforcing the connection between the documents. Each performance measure should also be expressed in a consistent way.⁶⁷

4.22 The ANAO examined the Office’s 2023–24 PBS, corporate plan and annual performance statements for consistency. The annual performance statements aligned with the corporate plan, and there were some minor differences between the corporate plan and the PBS in how the performance measures were expressed. Where performance information (such as performance measures, targets, data sources and methodologies) in the corporate plan or annual report differs from the PBS, entities should explain these changes in their annual performance statements to help the Parliament reconcile the information.⁶⁸ The 2023–24 annual performance statements did not explain the differences.

Appendix 1 Entity responses

Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General

Australian Federal Police

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Appendix 2 Improvements observed by the ANAO

1. The existence of independent external audit, and the accompanying potential for scrutiny improves performance. Improvements in administrative and management practices usually occur: in anticipation of ANAO audit activity; during an audit engagement; as interim findings are made; and/or after the audit has been completed and formal findings are communicated.

2. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) has encouraged the ANAO to consider ways in which the ANAO could capture and describe some of these impacts. The ANAO’s corporate plan states that the ANAO’s annual performance statements will provide a narrative that will consider, amongst other matters, analysis of key improvements made by entities during a performance audit process based on information included in tabled performance audit reports.

3. Performance audits involve close engagement between the ANAO and the audited entity as well as other stakeholders involved in the program or activity being audited. Throughout the audit engagement, the ANAO outlines to the entity the preliminary audit findings, conclusions and potential audit recommendations. This ensures that final recommendations are appropriately targeted and encourages entities to take early remedial action on any identified matters during the course of an audit. Remedial actions entities may take during the audit include:

• strengthening governance arrangements;
• introducing or revising policies, strategies, guidelines or administrative processes; and
• initiating reviews or investigations.

4. In this context, the below actions were observed by the ANAO during the course of the audit. It is not clear whether these actions and/or the timing of these actions were planned in response to proposed or actual audit activity (Table A.1). The ANAO has not sought to obtain assurance over the source of these actions or whether they have been appropriately implemented.

Table A.1: Improvements observed by the ANAO

Appendix 3 Heritage condition assessments, 2009 and 2023–24

1. The Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (the Office) conducts annual condition assessments of its property elements. Tables A.2 and A.3 outline 45 property elements of high heritage significance by site. Heritage management plans were commissioned by the Office in 2009 (Government House) and 2010 (Admiralty House). The Government House plan included a condition assessment for 14 property elements, including eight of ‘primary’ significance. For these eight items, the condition in 2023–24 has stayed at the same level or improved. The 2010 Admiralty House plan did not include condition ratings by element.

2. Heritage management plans outlined significance levels for Government House (‘primary’, ‘contributory’, and ‘little or no’); and for Admiralty House (‘exceptional’, ‘high’, ‘little’, and ‘intrusive’). The Office simplified condition assessments and performance reporting by classifying the following heritage management plan significance levels as ‘high’: ‘primary’ (Government House); and ‘exceptional’ and ‘high’ (Admiralty House).

Table A.2: Condition of elements with high heritage significance, Government House

Key: ◆ Very good or Good ▲ Fair ■ Poor

Source: ANAO analysis.

Table A.3: Condition of elements with high heritage significance, Admiralty House

Key: ◆ Very good or Good ▲ Fair ■ Poor

Source: ANAO analysis.