This report, which informs the Parliament on the audits of financial statements of Commonwealth entities for 1995-96, aligns with the Government's policy for timely public reporting of financial information. It provides a summary of the opinions formed on those organisations' financial statements and the matters and recommendations raised. Matters reported relate primarily to issues on internal control structures and information technology.

The audit objective was to assess Defence’s implementation of the five recommendations in  ANAO Report No.19 2014-15 Management of the Disposal of Specialist Military Equipment and the related recommendation in JCPAA  Report 449 Review of Auditor-General's Reports Nos. 1-23 (2014-15).

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) publishes two reports annually addressing the outcomes of the financial statement audits of Commonwealth entities, and the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Australian Government, to provide Parliament an independent examination of the financial accounting and reporting of public sector entities. This report focuses on the results of the interim audit phase, including an assessment of entities’ key internal controls, of the 2015–16 financial statements audits of 21 departments and other major General Government Sector (GGS) entities. These entities contribute 95 per cent of GGS revenues and expenses.

Increased transparency and accountability on progress with major Defence equipment acquisitions has been a focus of parliamentary interest for some time. Beginning in 2007–08, an annual program has been established in conjunction with the Department of Defence to enable the ANAO to review and report to the Parliament on the status of major Defence acquisition projects, as set out in the Major Projects Report. The review includes information relating to the cost, schedule and progress towards delivery of required capability of individual projects as at 30 June each year, and is undertaken at the request of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

Increased transparency and accountability on progress with major Defence equipment acquisitions has been a focus of parliamentary interest for some time. Beginning in 2007–08, an annual program has been established in conjunction with the Department of Defence to enable the ANAO to review and report to the Parliament on the status of major Defence acquisition projects, as set out in the major projects report. The review includes information relating to the cost, schedule and progress towards delivery of required capability of individual projects as at 30 June each year, and is undertaken at the request of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

You are invited to contribute to the annual audit work program of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). Please review the draft potential performance audit topic list and tell us what you think.

The Auditor-General is an independent officer of the Parliament whose role is to support accountability and transparency in the Australian Government sector by providing independent reporting to the Parliament. The Auditor-General’s reports assist the Parliament to hold government entities accountable and to drive improvements in public administration.

The Auditor-General is assisted by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to conduct a range of audits in Australian Government entities, such as: 

• mandated annual financial statements audits, including the audit of the Australian Government’s consolidated financial statements;
• performance audits;
• assurance reviews (including audits by arrangement); and
• audits of the annual performance statements and measures of Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth companies and their subsidiaries.

Since 2007–08, the ANAO has prepared the Defence Major Projects Report (MPR) to enable reporting to the Parliament on the status of major Defence acquisition projects. In March 2026, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) announced its decision not to continue the MPR program. Further information is available here.

Contributions must relate to the performance or expenditure of Commonwealth public sector entities. The ANAO does not investigate complaints or disputes, review or provide legal decisions, and does not comment on the merits of government policy and legislation.

While your contribution will be considered and handled with care, we will not provide you with feedback on your submission. The confidentiality of your contribution may be protected by law (see section 36 of the Auditor-General Act 1997). In addition, any personal information gathered by the ANAO will be treated in accordance with the ANAO Privacy Policy.

Please send feedback about this draft program to communication@anao.gov.au. Submissions close on 10 April 2026 at 11:59pm (Australian Eastern Standard Time).

Increased transparency and accountability on progress with major Defence equipment acquisitions has been a focus of parliamentary interest for some time. Beginning in 2007–08, an annual program has been established in conjunction with the Department of Defence to enable the ANAO to review and report to the Parliament on the status of major Defence acquisition projects, as set out in the Major Projects Report. The review includes information relating to the cost, schedule and progress towards delivery of required capability of individual projects as at 30 June each year. The Report is undertaken at the request of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

The main objectives of the audit were to examine and form an opinion on:

• the efficiency, economy and administrative effectiveness with which the Commonwealth planned and coordinated implementation of the gun buy-back scheme;
• the management of firearms surrender and destruction in the Australian Capital Territory by the Australian Federal Police; and
• the management of the competitive tendering process for the national public education campaign.

Audit criteria were developed which examined program policy and planning, coordination with and payment of funds to the States.

This report covers a number of the discretionary compensation and debt relief mechanisms that are available to Commonwealth agencies, where individuals or entities have been disadvantaged by legislation, or actions by agencies or staff, or some other negative circumstances. It deals mainly with two legislative mechanisms, namely, act of grace payments and waivers of debt, and one administrative mechanism, the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) scheme. This report also briefly covers two other mechanisms, namely ex gratia payments and payments in special circumstances relating to Australian Public Service (APS) employment. The main objective of the audit was to assess whether the management of claims for compensation and debt relief in special circumstances was in accordance with relevant legislative requirements and Commonwealth guidelines, and whether the current administrative policies and procedures were adequate.

The purpose of the audit was to examine the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the Therapeutic Goods Administration's performance in evaluating and approving prescription drugs for public use. In particular the audit focused on analysing elements of the regulatory process associated with the evaluation of prescription drugs. In this context the audit reviewed the administrative operations performed within the Department's Drug Safety and Evaluation Branch, the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee and the Business and Services Branch of the TGA, rather than any processes preceding or succeeding those activities.

The objective of the audit was to assess key aspects of the Australian Taxation Office's administration of the PAYE system in relation to employers' remittances and to identify opportunities for improvement. The audit focussed on four areas:

• remittance monitoring, especially managing late remittances;
• follow-up action for end of year reconciliation, including discrepancies;
• handling compliance intelligence gained from the public; and
• ATO compliance projects.

This edition of Audit Insights considers the approaches entities are taking to implement parliamentary and ANAO recommendations to improve public administration practices and outcomes. It updates and replaces the edition published in November 2019 and draws on audit reports released since then.

Parliamentary committee inquiries and ANAO performance audits identify risks to the successful delivery of outcomes and generally provide recommendations to address them. Tabling an agreed response to a parliamentary committee recommendation formalises government or entity commitment to the Parliament to implement the agreed action. Similarly, ANAO performance audit reports are prepared for presentation to Parliament and agreement to implement a recommendation made in an ANAO report is therefore a commitment to the Parliament.

An Audit Committee Chairs Forum was held on Friday 8 December 2023. The text on this page is the communique from the forum.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) publishes two reports annually addressing the outcomes of the financial statement audits of Australian government entities and the Consolidated Financial Statements (CFS) of the Australian Government to provide Parliament an independent examination of the financial accounting and reporting of public sector entities. This report focuses on the results of the interim audit phase, including an assessment of entities’ key internal controls, of the 2016–17 financial statements audits of 25 entities including all departments of state and a number of major Australian government entities.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ending on 30 June 2014. It addresses the Requirements for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive Agencies and FMA Act Bodies approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in May 2014; the performance measures set out in the outcome and programs framework in the 2013–14 Portfolio Budget Statements; section 28 of the Auditor-General Act 1997; and other annual reporting requirements provided for in legislation.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ending on 30 June 2013. It addresses the Requirements for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive Agencies and FMA Act Bodies approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in June 2013; the performance measures set out in the outcomes and programs framework in the 2012–13 Portfolio Budget Statements; section 28 of the Auditor-General Act 1997; and other annual reporting requirements set out in legislation.

The objective of this audit was to form an opinion on the effectiveness of Internet security measures within the Commonwealth public sector. The second objective was to provide better practice guidance for managing an Internet connection. The audit covered a range of Commonwealth agencies which had established an Internet facility. It specifically addressed the following matters : Internet security policies; site management - including change control processes, virus prevention and detection strategies, and incident response plans; controls over access to the Internet site and to data sources connected to the site; and user education and training.

The objective of the follow-up audit was to report on the action taken by the Australian Customs Service to address the recommendations of the 1996 Audit Report. The audit also reviewed key areas of the Passenger Movement Charge administration identified in the 1996 audit, including the appropriateness of formal arrangements between the ACS and Regular Public Transport airlines and assessed the proposed arrangements being developed by the ACS. The arrangements with RPT airlines were a particular focus in the follow-up report (as they were in the 1996 Audit Report), because of the significance of that category of carrier in revenue terms

The objectives of the audit were to:

• evaluate the extent to which the Government's sale objectives were achieved, with a focus on those objectives relating to the optimisation of sale proceeds and minimisation of risk to the Commonwealth;
• examine the effectiveness of the management of the sale process to ensure the Commonwealth received fair value; and
• within the context of broader Commonwealth debt management considerations, assess the application of the sale proceeds to repaying Commonwealth debt and the extent to which public debt interest payments may be reduced.

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether FaCS and Centrelink had: a valid Business Case for the Edge project, as revised from time to time, including estimated costs, actual costs, and expected benefits; effective governance of the project, including reviews at critical points in the project and subsequent decisions to continue or, in the final analysis, to discontinue; an appropriate contract with SoftLaw, which was adequately managed; delivered appropriate advice on progress, project viability, and acceptable solutions to technical issues to Executive of FaCS and Centrelink during the project; and valid reasons for discontinuing the project. The ANAO began this audit in March 2004, four months after the Edge project was terminated, following the Auditor-General's agreement to a suggestion by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit that the project was a suitable subject for audit.

This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing’s (Health’s) implementation of star ratings for residential aged care.

The star ratings system was introduced in December 2022. An overall star rating and star ratings in four categories (compliance, residents’ experience, staffing and quality measures) are assigned to residential aged care services on a public facing website (My Aged Care) operated by Health. The star rating system aims to help older Australians and their representatives make more informed choices about their care and to help aged care providers to see where they are performing well and how they can improve. In October 2024 the Commonwealth Ombudsman made a public statement expressing a view that star ratings were not sufficiently meaningful to help people make informed decisions about their aged care. From November to December 2024 Health ran a consultation process on planned design changes to star ratings. Health has stated that an evaluation report was expected to be provided to the Australian Government in early 2025.

This audit would assess the effectiveness of the Department of Finance’s administration of the governance and accountability framework for Government Business Enterprises (GBE), including its support and advice to the Minister for Finance, who is a GBE shareholder minister. The audit may also review entities’ implementation of framework requirements and expectations set out in the GBE guidelines.

A GBE is a Commonwealth entity or Commonwealth company that is prescribed pursuant to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and related Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014. Ten GBEs have been prescribed. Two GBEs are corporate Commonwealth entities: Australian Postal Corporation; and Defence Housing Australia. Eight GBEs are Commonwealth companies: ASC Pty Limited; Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd; Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited; CEA Technologies Pty Limited; National Intermodal Corporation Limited; NBN Co Limited; Snowy Hydro Limited; and WSA Co Limited. The Department of Finance provides advice to the Australian Government relating to its GBEs and other commercial entities.

This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s (DAFF) management of Approved Arrangements for the importation of live animals. The Biosecurity Act 2015 allows DAFF to approve public or private industry entities (or biosecurity industry participants) to carry out certain border biosecurity risk management activities, in accordance with specified conditions. Approved arrangement (AA) holders are approved to undertake certain biosecurity actions.

An ANAO audit of AQIS' cost-recovery systems was conducted in 2000-01 (Audit Report No 10, 2000-01), following a request from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA). That audit aimed to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of AQIS' cost-recovery systems, and provide assurance to Parliament that cost-recoverable programs were identifying and recovering the full costs of services provided, without cross-subsidisation. The ANAO made six recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of AQIS cost-recovery systems. The JCPAA, at a subsequent hearing, made a further three recommendations. The objective of the follow-up audit was to assess AQIS' implementation of the ANAO and the JCPAA recommendations. The audit also aimed to determine whether implementation of these recommendations, or alternative actions taken to address the issues leading to the recommendations, had improved AQIS' management of its cost-recovery processes.

This first e-newsletter of the Commonwealth Auditors General Group was produced by Sir Amyas Morse, UK Comptroller and Auditor General as guest editor, along with the editorial team of the Auditors General of Australia, Fiji, Jamaica and Tanzania. Cybersecurity is the theme for this newsletter, with articles from the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of Australia, Malta and the UK.

One of the main purposes of the e-newsletter is to share experiences and establish a dialogue based on the discussions that were started at the 23rd Conference of Commonwealth Auditors General in Delhi. For this edition the conversation is around ‘leveraging technology in public audit’, and it draws on international peers experiences and learnings from conducting cybersecurity audits.

This annual report documents the performance of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the financial year ending on 30 June 2015. It addresses the Requirements for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive Agencies and Other Non‑corporate Commonwealth Entities approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in June 2015; the performance measures set out in the outcome and programs framework in the 2014–15 Portfolio Budget Statements; section 28 of the Auditor‑General Act 1997; and other annual reporting requirements set out in legislation.

The Auditor-General Act 1997 establishes the mandate for the Auditor General to undertake financial statement audits of all Commonwealth entities including those of government agencies, statutory authorities and government business enterprises.

Financial statement audits are an independent examination of the financial accounting and reporting of public sector entities. The results of the examination are presented in an audit report, which expresses the auditor's opinion on whether the financial statements as a whole and the information contained therein fairly present each entity's financial position and the results of its operations and cash flows. The accounting treatments and disclosures reflected in the financial statements by the entity are assessed against relevant accounting standards and legislative reporting requirements.

The objectives of this audit were to assess, with respect to guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort:

• changes in the size and nature of the Commonwealth's reported exposure since 30 June 1995;
• the extent of improvement in agencies' management and monitoring of the Commonwealth's exposure to these instruments;
• the approach of agencies to effective risk management and control of Commonwealth exposures to these instruments; and
• whether current reporting practices provide a sufficiently comprehensive coverage for public accountability purposes, at both the agency and whole of government levels.

Industry levies play a significant role in the provision of many public services and fund a range of activities undertaken by regulatory bodies such as the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), through to financing reform of the Australian waterfront labour force. The objectives of this audit were to assess:

• the coverage, revenue and expenses of non-primary industry levies;
• the effectiveness of selected entities' financial management of non-primary industry levies; and
• areas of better administrative practice relating to the financial management of non-primary industry levies.

The audit examined the administrative effectiveness of arrangements between Health and HIC, in relation to the management and administration of the Medicare Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Health predominantly exercises a policy and leadership role within the health portfolio - HIC delivers a range of health services directly to the public and members of the health industry. Both agencies have stated that they recognise the importance of working together, as partners in their respective roles, to maximise their performance in the achievement of health portfolio outcomes and to discharge their respective responsibilities. This joint commitment is embodied in a written agreement - called the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA).

In 1997-98, the ANAO audited the Child Support Agency (CSA), making 12 recommendations to improve its operational performance. A related report by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit supported the general findings of the ANAO audit and reinforced three ANAO recommendations in its own report. The audit examined client service in the CSA by following-up the CSA's implementation of the recommendations contained in these two previous reports and more broadly assessing whether the CSA had improved the management and delivery of its client service sine the previous ANAO audit.

The audit reviewed the Defence's $5.05 billion New Submarine Project which commenced in 1982 and involves design and construction of six Collins class submarines and associated supplies and services. The objectives of the audit were to assess project management by the Department's Project Office in the light of accepted better-practice project management techniques. It also aimed to derive lessons learnt and recommendations that could be applied to the Project and to similar Defence projects now and in the future. The audit follows a 1992 audit of the Project by the ANAO and a review by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in 1995.

This audit would examine the effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) governance of data and analytics.

The ATO has established a new enterprise risk relating to misuse of data and analytics: ‘There is a risk that we (or those we share our data or analysis with) do not lawfully or appropriately use our data and/or analysis, caused by a failure in our data and analytics governance, resulting in adverse impacts on individuals, loss of revenue and/or loss of public trust and confidence and reduction in willing participation.’

This report examined the publication of financial statements and audit reports in the hardcopy and website forms of the annual reports of 117 Commonwealth reporting entities. The audit objective was to determine whether the published financial statements and audit reports agreed in all respects with those that had been certified by the chief-executive or governing body (as appropriate) and the Auditor-General or his delegate. In all but two instances, the reporting period covered was the year ended 30 June 2002.

The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of entities’ implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

Taxation rulings are a key mechanism used by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to disseminate the Commissioner of Taxation's interpretative advice on Australian taxation law. The objective of the audit was to:

report to Parliament on the operation of the ATO's administration of taxation rulings (public, private and oral rulings); and where appropriate, make recommendations for improvements, having regard to considerations of: efficiency and effectiveness of the ATO's administration of the rulings system, particularly in relation to the achievement of the objectives set by Parliament for the rulings system; the ATO's systems' capacity to deliver consistency and fairness for taxpayers; and good corporate governance, including the control framework.

The audit reviewed the effectiveness of HIC's approach to customer service delivery to the Australian public as customers of Medicare. The primary issues examined were whether: . HIC manages its customer service delivery performance effectively;

• HIC's approach to people management adequately supports customer service delivery;
• HIC obtains adequate information from customers on their needs, expectations, and perceptions of HIC's service delivery; and
• HIC provides adequate information to customers on its services and on the service standards that customers should expect.

The objective of this benchmarking study of the finance function was to obtain and report on over time, quantitative and qualitative data, relating to finance function activities as they operate in Commonwealth organisations. Over the three year period of the study, the majority of participating Commonwealth organisations have shown an improvement in their quantitative and/or qualitative benchmark results across the range of finance function activities. The Report does not provide specific reasons for differences in performance. However, it does provide guidance as to some of the better practices that participating organisations, and the wider public sector, may wish to adopt, or adapt in order to achieve improved performance in the activities of the finance function.

Defence has long provided housing assistance for members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and their families. In 1988, this function passed to the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), which was established to provide suitable housing to meet Defence's operational needs. In 2000, Defence and DHA signed a Services Agreement valued at $3.5 billion over 10 years. The objective of the audit was to assess whether Defence's management of its housing and relocation services provided for ADF members meets specified requirements; and to make practical recommendations for more efficient, effective and economical use of public resources provided for this purpose.

Grant Hehir, Auditor-General for Australia, delivered a presentation titled A reflection of how far performance auditing has come from its roots in the 1970s to where we are today and where we are heading, at the IMPACT Conference in Brisbane on 15 March 2016.

IMPACT brings together Auditors-General, leaders, practitioners, industry experts and academics from across the globe to discuss the future of performance auditing in the public sector, share experiences and question current practices.

The policy for responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in government in government includes mandatory requirements to nominate accountable officials and publish AI transparency statements. This statement provides details of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) implementation of these policy requirements.

While recognising the diversity of administrative requirements for different special payments, the audit provides a basis for comparison of performance across 14 different agencies in 1997-98 and progress made since the then Joint Committee of Public Accounts report 342 The administration of specific purpose payments. The objectives of the audit were to:

• identify and benchmark current practices in the management of performance information within SPP agreements;
• document the lessons learned including better practice from different agencies;
• provide a longitudinal analysis of progress since 1995; and
• provide practical guidance for the development and implementation of appropriate performance information systems and accountability.

The audit reviewed the operations of the Bureau of Meteorology. The Bureau's functions include the taking and recording of meteorological observations and other observations required for the purposes of meteorology; the forecasting of weather and of the state of the atmosphere; the issue of warnings of weather conditions likely to endanger life or property; the supply, publication and promotion of meteorological information; and cooperation with international meteorological agencies in relation to the functions just listed. The objectives of the audit were to:

• use national and international benchmarks to evaluate the Bureau's performance in terms of timeliness, cost and quality of weather services to meet the needs of clients; and
• assess how well the Bureau is placed in measuring its outputs/outcomes within the context of the Accrual Budgeting Framework.

The audit was undertaken following advice from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) to the Auditor-General that assurance that ABC programming adequately reflects the ABC's Charter was an audit priority of Parliament. The objective of the audit is to provide Parliament with this assurance. The focus of the audit was on the governance arrangements of the ABC Board and management that enable the ABC to demonstrate the extent to which it is achieving its' Charter obligations, and other related statutory requirements, efficiently and effectively. The scope of the audit was as follows:

• Review the ABC's corporate governance framework against better practice models. The ANAO had regard to the ABC's unique role as a national public broadcaster established as a budget funded Commonwealth statutory authority subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
• Examine the ABC Board's approach to the interpretation of the Charter requirements of the ABC and the setting of strategic directions, and management's administrative arrangements for implementing the strategic directions established by the Board.
• Examine the ABC's performance information framework, the development, documentation and use of performance measures in relation to targets and/or objectives, the monitoring and reporting of performance and its' inter-relationship with the corporate planning and budgetary processes, particularly in relation to the strategic directions set by the Board.

The audit did not examine the overall management of the ABC. In keeping with the audit scope, the audit examined ways in which the ABC aligns its' strategic directions with its' Charter requirements for programs broadcast on radio, television and on-line and assures itself, and Parliament, about the achievement of its' Charter obligations. Further, the audit did not examine the operations of ABC Enterprises or symphony orchestras that operate as ABC-owned subsidiary companies.

The report summarises audit findings relating to entity internal control structures arising out of the interim financial statement audits of 21 Major Commonwealth entities for the year ending 30 June 2003. The interim audit examinations seek to update the ANAO's assessment of the internal control environment of entities reviewed, so as to determine whether reliance can be placed on those control structures to produce complete, accurate and valid information for financial reporting purposes. In addition this year's report provides observations on some key strategic issues and influences which are, or will be in the future, likely to affect the overall financial framework in the public sector

Information on legislation that governs the work of the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).

Pursuant to a request from the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee and the Auditor - General's response to the Committee, the objective of this performance audit was to examine and report on the selection of the preferred tenderer in the Health Group IT outsourcing process. In particular, the audit examined the circumstances surrounding OASITO's administration of the: - disclosure to a tenderer of information provided by other tenderers; - subsequent acceptance of a late re-pricing offer from a tenderer: and - advice to the decision- maker leading to the selection of the preferred tenderer. The audit focused particularly on assessing the administrative processes undertaken in the selection of the preferred tenderer for the Health Group. Audit emphasis was placed on the management of the probity aspects of the tender process, particularly in regard to events that occurred between June 1999, when the tenderers provided their penultimate pricing, and the selection of the preferred tenderer in September 1999.

This report has been prepared in response to a resolution of the Senate on 8 December 1994 which referred certain matters relating to the possible sale of ANL Ltd to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee. The resolution directed the Committee to consider a report from the Auditor-General and drew the Auditor-General's attention to a range of specific issues and questions.

The objective of the audit was to report to Parliament on the progress Defence has made since June 2001 in implementing appropriate strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining skilled IT personnel. The audit focused on management of specialist information system skills and did not examine skills needed by users of information systems, although the latter is of obvious importance for overall performance. In June 2001, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), after reviewing the ANAO's Audit Report No. 11 Knowledge System Equipment Acquisition Projects in Defence, commented that its major concern about Defence's ability to develop a knowledge edge with adequate coherence, centred on Defence's ability to recruit, develop and retain skilled individuals needed in all parts of the DIE. The JCPAA recommended that the ANAO conduct an audit of Defence's strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining skilled IT personnel.

The ANAO regards integrity as a core value of the organisation — critical in sustaining the confidence of Parliament, strengthening public trust in government and delivering quality audit products. Maintaining strong institutional integrity is critical to the operations and reputation of the ANAO.

The ANAO Integrity Framework provides an overarching structure to the integrity control system, supporting our institution’s integrity. The framework serves to assist in ethical decision making and risk, fraud and misconduct management.

Beyond its control system, the ANAO maintains an enduring focus on promoting integrity as a value that is embedded in our work and culture. The ANAO recognises that integrity demands quality not only in our products but also in the behaviours of our people.

The ANAO Integrity Advisor supports the effective and ongoing application of the Integrity Framework by providing advice to staff regarding integrity matters. The Integrity Advisor is responsible for increasing integrity awareness across the organisation and for reporting annually to the ANAO Executive Board of Management on actions taken under the Framework. The Auditor-General has published the ANAO Integrity Framework and Report for 2022–23 to provide increased transparency of the measures we undertake to maintain a high-integrity culture in the ANAO.

Integrity is a core value of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) — critical in sustaining the confidence of Parliament, strengthening public trust in government and delivering quality audit products. Maintaining strong institutional integrity is essential to the operations and reputation of the ANAO.

The ANAO Integrity Framework provides an overarching structure to the integrity control system, supporting our institution’s integrity. The Framework serves to assist in ethical decision-making and risk, fraud and misconduct management.

Beyond its control system, the ANAO maintains an enduring focus on promoting integrity as a value that is embedded in our work and culture. The ANAO recognises that integrity demands quality not only in our products but also in the behaviours of our people.

The ANAO Integrity Advisor supports the effective and ongoing application of the Integrity Framework by providing advice to staff regarding integrity matters. The Integrity Advisor is responsible for increasing integrity awareness across the organisation and for reporting annually to the ANAO Executive Board of Management on actions taken under the Framework. The Auditor-General publishes the ANAO Integrity Report to provide increased transparency of the measures we undertake to maintain a high-integrity culture in the ANAO.

Quality in the delivery of the ANAO’s audit services is critical in supporting the integrity of our audit reports and maintaining the confidence of the Parliament and public sector entities.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Corporate Plan is the ANAO’s key strategic planning document. It guides our operating environment and sets out how we will deliver on our purpose. The Quality Assurance Framework and Plan complements the Corporate Plan.

The ANAO Quality Assurance Framework is the system of quality control that the ANAO has established to provide the Auditor-General with reasonable assurance that the ANAO complies with the ANAO standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and reports issued by the ANAO are appropriate in the circumstances.

This Audit Quality Report demonstrates the ANAO assessment of the implementation and operating effectiveness of the elements of the ANAO Quality Assurance Framework. The report provides transparency in respect of the processes, policies, and procedures that support each element of the ANAO Quality Assurance Framework, and outlines audit quality indicators measuring ANAO performance against target benchmarks. This report also includes the achievement of the quality assurance strategy and deliverables set out in the Quality Assurance Framework and Plan 2021–22.

The ANAO regards integrity as a core value of the organisation — critical in sustaining the confidence of Parliament, strengthening public trust in government and delivering quality audit products. Maintaining strong institutional integrity is critical to the operations and reputation of the ANAO.

The ANAO Integrity Framework provides an overarching structure to the integrity control system, supporting our institution’s integrity. The framework serves to assist in ethical decision-making and risk, fraud and misconduct management.

Beyond its control system, the ANAO maintains an enduring focus on promoting integrity as a value that is embedded in our work and culture. The ANAO recognises that integrity demands quality not only in our products but also in the behaviours of our people.

The ANAO Integrity Advisor supports the effective and ongoing application of the Integrity Framework by providing advice to staff regarding integrity matters. The Integrity Advisor is responsible for increasing integrity awareness across the organisation and for reporting annually to the ANAO Executive Board of Management on actions taken under the Framework. The Auditor-General publishes the ANAO Integrity Framework and annual Integrity Report to provide increased transparency of the measures we undertake to maintain a high-integrity culture in the ANAO.

The ANAO regards integrity as a core value of the organisation — critical in sustaining the confidence of Parliament, strengthening public trust in government and delivering quality audit products. Maintaining strong institutional integrity is critical to the operations and reputation of the ANAO.

The ANAO Integrity Framework provides an overarching structure to the integrity control system, supporting our institution’s integrity. The framework serves to assist in ethical decision-making and risk, fraud and misconduct management.

Beyond its control system, the ANAO maintains an enduring focus on promoting integrity as a value that is embedded in our work and culture. The ANAO recognises that integrity demands quality not only in our products but also in the behaviours of our people.

The ANAO Integrity Advisor supports the effective and ongoing application of the Integrity Framework by providing advice to staff regarding integrity matters. The Integrity Advisor is responsible for increasing integrity awareness across the organisation and for reporting annually to the ANAO Executive Board of Management on actions taken under the Framework. The Auditor-General publishes the ANAO Integrity Framework and annual Integrity Report to provide increased transparency of the measures we undertake to maintain a high-integrity culture in the ANAO.

The ANAO regards integrity as a core value of the organisation — critical in sustaining the confidence of Parliament, strengthening public trust in government and delivering quality audit products. Maintaining strong institutional integrity is critical to the operations and reputation of the ANAO.

The ANAO Integrity Framework provides an overarching structure to the integrity control system, supporting our institution’s integrity. The Framework serves to assist in ethical decision-making and risk, fraud and misconduct management.

Beyond its control system, the ANAO maintains an enduring focus on promoting integrity as a value that is embedded in our work and culture. The ANAO recognises that integrity demands quality not only in our products but also in the behaviours of our people.

The ANAO Integrity Advisor supports the effective and ongoing application of the Integrity Framework by providing advice to staff regarding integrity matters. The Integrity Advisor is responsible for increasing integrity awareness across the organisation and for reporting annually to the ANAO Executive Board of Management on actions taken under the Framework. The Auditor-General publishes the ANAO Integrity Report to provide increased transparency of the measures we undertake to maintain a high-integrity culture in the ANAO.

Welcome to the last edition of Audit Matters for 2025. I’ve provided some insights in this edition which may help you to focus on a few areas of audit interest in the new year.

Audit work, as you know, is ongoing. We’ll start tabling reports again in mid-late January 2026. Next year you’ll also see some shorter performance audit reports, as part of a trial we’re undertaking to bring reports to the Parliament more quickly. Thanks to those agencies who have worked with us as we trial this new approach. We’re also doing some important work on how we approach performance statements audits in the 21 entities subject to this process. Watch out for our summary report on performance statements early in 2026 — you can subscribe to be notified of release on our website.

I wish you and your teams a restful break over the holiday season after a big year in the public sector. I look forward to seeing you in 2026.

Rona Mellor PSM, Deputy Auditor-General

Quality in the delivery of the ANAO’s audit services is critical in supporting the integrity of our audit reports and maintaining the confidence of the Parliament and public sector entities. The ANAO Corporate Plan 2023–24 is the ANAO’s primary planning document. It outlines our purpose; the dynamic environment in which we operate; our commitment to building capability; and the priorities, activities and performance measures by which we will be held to account. This quality management framework and plan complements the corporate plan. It describes the ANAO’s system of quality management and reflects the ANAO’s responses to quality risks for the coming year.

The ANAO Quality Management Framework is the ANAO’s established system of quality management to provide the Auditor-General with reasonable assurance that the ANAO complies with the ANAO Auditing Standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and reports issued by the ANAO are appropriate in the circumstances.

The quality management framework and plan component of this document identifies the ANAO’s quality objectives and key responses to address identified quality risks and to provide the Auditor-General with confidence that those responses are implemented and operating effectively.

The ANAO reports on the audit quality indicators that measure the ANAO’s performance against target benchmarks in the annual audit quality report published on the ANAO website. The audit quality report also provides transparency with respect to the implementation and operation of the responses to address quality risks for each component of the ANAO’s system of quality management.

Quality in the delivery of the ANAO’s audit services is critical in supporting the integrity of our audit reports and maintaining the confidence of the Parliament and public sector entities. The ANAO Corporate Plan 2025–26 is the ANAO's primary planning document. It outlines our purpose; the dynamic environment in which we operate; our commitment to building capability; and the activities and performance measures by which we will be held to account.

This Quality Management Framework and Plan complements the Corporate Plan. It describes the ANAO’s system of quality management and reflects the ANAO's responses to quality risks for the coming year.

The ANAO Quality Management Framework is the ANAO’s established system of quality management to provide the Auditor-General with reasonable assurance that the ANAO complies with the ANAO Auditing Standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and reports issued by the ANAO are appropriate in the circumstances.

The Quality Management Strategy and Plan component of this document identifies the ANAO’s quality objectives and key responses to address identified quality risks and to provide the Auditor-General with confidence that those responses are implemented and operating effectively.

The ANAO reports on the audit quality indicators that measure the ANAO’s performance against target benchmarks in the annual Audit Quality Report published on the ANAO website. The Audit Quality Report also provides transparency with respect to the implementation and operation of the responses to address quality risks for each component of the ANAO’s system of quality management.

Quality in the delivery of the ANAO’s audit services is critical in supporting the integrity of our audit reports and maintaining the confidence of the Parliament and public sector entities. The ANAO Corporate Plan 2024–25 is the ANAO's primary planning document. It outlines our purpose; the dynamic environment in which we operate; our commitment to building capability; and the activities and performance measures by which we will be held to account. This Quality Management Framework and Plan complements the Corporate Plan. It describes the ANAO’s system of quality management and reflects the ANAO's responses to quality risks for the coming year.

The ANAO Quality Management Framework is the ANAO’s established system of quality management to provide the Auditor-General with reasonable assurance that the ANAO complies with the ANAO Auditing Standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and reports issued by the ANAO are appropriate in the circumstances.

The Quality Management Strategy and Plan component of this document identifies the ANAO’s quality objectives and key responses to address identified quality risks and to provide the Auditor-General with confidence that those responses are implemented and operating effectively.

The ANAO reports on the audit quality indicators that measure the ANAO’s performance against target benchmarks in the annual Audit Quality Report published on the ANAO website. The Audit Quality Report also provides transparency with respect to the implementation and operation of the responses to address quality risks for each component of the ANAO’s system of quality management.

On 16 May 2017, the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet wrote to portfolio agency heads, including the Auditor-General, requesting some additional information on senior executive remuneration and highly paid individuals be published on websites by 31 July 2017. The request acknowledges that there is an increasing level of interest from the Parliament and the public to provide greater transparency of remuneration of senior executives and other highly paid officials.

The two tables below outline the cash remuneration at an aggregate level, within dollar ranges (or bands) for substantive senior executives and highly paid individuals, and show the numbers of employees within each band. The two tables will also be published in our audited financial statements which form part of our annual report. These notes are in addition to the information we must report in our financial statements on key management personnel remuneration under the accounting standards.