2. Areas of inquiry by the Committee
   1. As noted in the previous chapter, the Committee focused on six areas in its review of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)’s Annual Performance Statements 2021–22. These areas, which are discussed below, were:

• inability to report on performance measures
• Machinery of Government impacts on performance reporting
• effectiveness of performance measures
• planning and strategic approaches to performance
• the methodologies and supporting information used to report against performance measures, and
• performance measures for the Government’s agriculture objective.

Inability to report on performance measures

2.2The ANAO issued qualified findings for two of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) performance measures related to its program to provide and maintain war graves. In its annual report DVA stated that it was ‘unable to report against these two measures.’[1]

2.3The ANAO agreed with DVA’s assessment that the entity could not accurately report on these measures as DVA could not demonstrate processes to support the completeness, accuracy and reliability of data in the War Graves System and did not use reliable or verifiable information. Additionally, ANAO found that DVA’s assurance process for confirming the status of war graves, by having departmental staff visit a selection of sites, was not effectively implemented.[2]

2.4The ANAO advised the Committee that not reporting on a performance measure does not necessarily lead to the ANAO issuing a qualification, and that this assessment was based on the materiality of the issue. The ANAO stated the measures for the maintenance of war graves were directly relevant to the purpose of DVA and were therefore significant to the performance statements audit. However, if a purpose of an entity had multiple measures or pieces of performance information related to it, and it cannot report on one of them then this may not be as significant and might not be considered as material by ANAO.[3]

2.5When questioned by the Committee if entities’ statements of ‘cannot report’ against performance measures had a place in performance statements, the Auditor‑General stated that:

It's better not to have a performance measure that you can't report on and, if you can't report on it, it's better to you say you can't report on it than to make something up.[4]

2.6The ANAO noted that the presence of auditors ‘sharpens the mind’ of entities, however there is also the risk that entities can remove meaningful measures as a result of receiving qualifications. The Deputy Auditor-General stated:

[The ANAO] don't want to see a culture where people get a qualification and drop the measure, because that package of purpose can get lost. [The Department of Social Services] withdrew from the first engagement because DSS was really struggling to get its corporate plan in a way that brought that package of measures together. But we don't want to see qualifications for more than what they are, which is drawing attention to the parliament and the preparer of the statement that something can't be relied on in here.[5]

2.7DVA advised the Committee that there were issues with the integrity of the war graves data as the system used to collect the information was a payment rather than an asset management system. DVA stated that it is looking to procure an asset management system, but this will likely not occur until 2025.[6]

2.8In response to questions regarding the assurance process for contractors maintaining war grave sites DVA indicated it does not have an appropriate system to track this data, stating:

We have 330,000 commemorations that we look after in over 2,400 sites across Australia. The task itself is quite daunting in terms of how we do that… We do have systems [to provide assurance] and, as the Deputy Secretary [Ms Blewitt] said, it's largely managed at the state level, but they are largely manual and mandraulic in the sense of Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, and they're oversighted by our national office in terms of meeting their compliance. That data is there, but it's probably not in the form that meets the standards that ANAO would find suitable.[7]

Machinery of Government impacts on performance reporting

2.9As mentioned in the previous chapter, the ANAO audited the 2021–22 performance statements of six entities. Two of these entities, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) and Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) were subject to significant Machinery of Government (MOG) changes which came into effect on 1 July 2022. This resulted in functions and responsibilities of those departments moving to other or new entities:

• DAWE became the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) and some purposes and related performance measures were also moved to the newly created the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), and
• DESE became the Department of Education (Education) and some of its purposes and related performance measures were moved to the newly created Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR).[8]
  10. DAFF stated that corporate capabilities, including designing good performance measures and effective monitoring, are more likely to be affected by MOG’s than the business areas. DAFF further stated it was an issue with time and experience to develop the corporate capability in performance statements, as much as it was a MOG issue in moving these staff and functions.[9] DAFF further commented:

Unfortunately, in machinery-of-government changes you lose capability. We might have had a team of two and a half [working on performance statements] and then ended up with a team of zero. Rebuilding capability has also been a big part of that. But it's acknowledging that it's capability right throughout the organisation and it's a maturity and learning exercise for the business areas as well.[10]

2.11The Committee queried DAFF whether the MOG process felt like a repeating cycle of making progress then having that progress move to another entity. DAFF stated that it can, but building knowledge through initiatives like communities of practice on performance statements, helps build in redundancy.[11]

2.12The Attorney‑General’s Department (AGD) emphasised that entities’ maturity and capability in performance statements influences the impact of MOG’s on performance reporting. AGD noted that it had been involved in the performance statements audit since the pilot which has matured the entity’s performance statements and processes as they go through the audits. As a result of the MoG changes in 2022 AGD gained functions and their associated performance measures which were not as mature as AGD’s other measures. AGD further stated that maturing the new performance measures gained in the July 2022 MOG changes had been a key focus for the department in the past year.[12]

2.13AGD also noted the maturity of performance statements is not consistent across the public sector and, as a result, when there are MOG’s there can be measures and parts of performance statements with different levels of maturity, including the auditability of the measures and results.[13]

2.14The Department of Finance (Finance) stated that there were two connected sides to minimising the impact of MOG’s on entities performance reporting — developing a consistent capability across the sector and strong specific measures:

[Finance] look[s] at how do you lift capability right across the [public] service. What you want is not just pockets of expertise, you want a general uplift in capability. I think it would be very fair to say that since the introduction of the audits of annual performance statements there's been renewed enthusiasm on this topic and we see that through inquiries that we receive but also participation in things like the community of practice, and the range of entities that have been represented have significantly increased… In terms of specific measures, as they move around with machinery-of-government changes, the more we can build a strong performance framework and an individual organisation, an individual entity, there's an expectation that when functions are moved those activities and measures aren't necessarily going to change. They should be able to be picked up and moved across.[14]

Effectiveness of performance measures

2.15Section 16EA(a) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 (PGPA Rule) requires that the performance measures for an entity must relate directly to one or more of an entity’s purposes or key activities, which are articulated in its annual report. This, along with other requirements in the Commonwealth Performance Framework, means that the accountable authority and the staff of an entity should know how the entity is performing and meeting its purpose as a result of these measures.

2.16The ANAO stated that a core requirement of the Commonwealth Performance Framework is that the reporting gives a view of an entity’s performance as a whole:

That doesn't mean you report everything, but you would expect the purposes of the entity and the activities and the performance measures, if read in a whole, a parliamentarian or a reader would have a comprehensive view of the entity's performance. That's a component of the audit work that we do. We form a judgment on whether that's happening when we do the audit.[15]

2.17In its public hearing the Committee noted that for corporate entities there is a ‘profit or perish’ approach which provides a measure of success. However, Government entities do not have this imperative, so they must measure performance in other ways. The ANAO stated that in this environment government entities seem to value financial information more than performance information:

[Entities] do not appear to value the information they report in performance statements or see it as essential to an entity’s internal management to the same degree as financial information.[16]

2.18At its public hearing the Committee questioned entities on their understanding of what good performance looked like for their entity, noting the above challenges.

2.19DCCEEW noted that ‘good performance’ was linked to its purpose and objectives, stating:

For us, in terms of 'good', it is something that is understandable by the public. It is, as I said earlier, about how we are reporting back to parliament on our outcomes. If we go down into actually what that means in terms of performance measures, it is that they relate directly to our purposes and our key activities. It's using sources of information and methodologies that are reliable and verifiable. It's providing an unbiased basis for measurement and assessment of the entity's performance.[17]

2.20The Department of Social Services (DSS) stated that due to the diversity of its key activities, how it measures and assesses ‘good’ performance varies and includes a mix of qualitative and quantitative measures. DSS advised the Committee that:

Frankly, as we develop these measures we have a pretty good idea about what we're trying to measure and what the achievement is... We start with purpose and we work logically all the way through those things to say, okay, that's what we're trying to achieve. These are the activities we think we can do to undertake that. These are the measures against those. In that process, we then set what we think a good outcome looks like.[18]

2.21The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) stated that it has a purpose statement and performance measures against that which it has developed over many years and will continue to develop in the future. Treasury stated this involved both qualitative and quantitative measures, and a rating scale.[19]

2.22Representatives from Finance and DCCEEW advised the Committee that their staff know what good performance looks like by going to their purpose, outcomes, and key activities to see how these flow to the performance measures in the respective Corporate Plan.[20]

2.23AGD responded to the Committee’s query on what good performance looks like stating:

Fundamentally, 'good' looks like we actually have performance indicators that reflect our key activities, which goes without saying. How that actually translates into reality and purpose is: is our advice good? That's fundamental to AGD. The measure of that advice or the quality of that advice is something we look at. Our stakeholders is a key one, which again we use surveys for. There's a number of things in the legal case workspace that we measure. We're trying to measure the right things that are actually what the public expect us to do. Where we're maturing that is now to build that into the day-to-day business of the organisation.[21]

2.24The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), and the Department of Education (Education) communicated similar messages commenting that their staff’s understanding of ‘good’ performance for their department is linked to the entity’s purpose and performance measures published in the corporate plan.[22]

2.25DAFF, DEECEW and Finance further stated that their respective Secretaries sign off the Corporate Plan, which goes to what ‘good’ performance looks like for an entity, and therefore is ultimately set and approved by the accountable authority.[23]

2.26The ANAO commented in this regard that the Portfolio Budget Statements, which are approved by the relevant Minister, sit above the Corporate Plan and have a high-level summary of the outcomes and purpose of the organisation.[24] As a result the relevant Minister also has a role in setting what ‘good’ performance looks like for an entity.

Enterprise-level approach to performance reporting

2.27The ANAO’s 2021–22 audit of the six entities performance statements identified examples of better practice and areas for improvement, including the development of an enterprise level performance framework.

2.28The ANAO found that audited entities initially focused on establishing internal processes to meet the requirements of the PGPA Rule and reporting timeframes. This led to improvements for some entities such as reducing the risk of inaccurate or unreliable reporting, and the preparation of timely and high-quality supporting documentation for performance measures. The ANAO noted these are important first steps, but that performance reporting should seen as an integral part of the operation of an entity rather than a compliance exercise.[25]

2.29ANAO suggested in its audit that all entities should consider an enterprise approach to performance reporting, noting this approach can help entities achieve this an improve their transparency and accountability and support informed decision‑making at the strategic and operational levels. The key pillars of an enterprise level performance framework to include:

• a planning stage, identifying key activities and measures that link to an entity’s purposes
• a monitoring stage, periodically reviewing performance information against anticipated results
• a reporting stage, where the performance statements are prepared and presented, and
• a review stage, where measures are reviewed to ensure they are appropriate for the next cycle.[26]
  30. As at February 2023, DSS was the only audited entity that had begun planning an enterprise level performance framework. However, other entities did have aspects of these processes.[27] Since ANAO published its audit findings, DAFF advised the Committee it was also developing an enterprise performance and reporting framework.[28]
  31. Treasury advised the Committee in its submission that while it had not developed an enterprise level performance framework, it had a whole-of-department planning and performance reporting manual, and that the frameworks developed should be appropriate for each entity:

Treasury does not support the use of a prescriptive document title as proposed in the Auditor-General’s report – enterprise level performance framework. Entities should develop documentation that aligns with their internal practices and the audit should focus on the content of the document or document suite.[29]

2.32Treasury further submitted that its whole-of-department planning, and performance reporting manual covers three of the stages identified in the Auditor-General’s report, and that it also conducts an annual review of its purpose, key activities, intended results, performance measures and targets.[30]

2.33Education noted in its submission that it was developing a ‘Performance Framework’ to guide and support staff in performance information development, monitoring and reporting.’[31] AGD also advised in its response to the Committee’s written questions that it is maturing its enterprise performance management framework driven by its corporate plan.[32]

Periodic monitoring

2.34As discussed above, a key aspect of an enterprise level framework is a monitoring stage where performance information is periodically reviewed. The ANAO’s audit identified periodic reporting as another area of improvement to help entities use their performance information more effectively. ANAO reported that periodic monitoring can help guide operational and strategic decisions by:

• identifying potential issues early to support timely resolution
• assisting entities to understand organisation performance throughout the year
• supporting capacity and capability building, and
• fostering a culture of evaluation.[33]
  35. The ANAO further reported in its audit that while periodic reporting is standard practice for financial statements, it is not well established for performance reporting. Four of the six entities audited by ANAO reviewed their performance results during the reporting period but the frequency of this varied.[34]
  36. ANAO stated in the audit that Treasury’s periodic monitoring allowed it to provide progress updates on performance and identify potential refinements through its quality assurance processes.[35] Treasury also noted in its submission to the inquiry that it had established periodic monitoring as part of its performance statements governance cycle:

The mid-cycle review provides the Treasury Audit and Risk Committee, Performance and Risk Committee and Executive Board a performance report for the first six months of the performance cycle. The performance results and supporting evidence are tested through the reporting process and Treasury’s internal auditor…. The mid-cycle review is conducted in February and March. The six-monthly cadence of performance reporting has proven to be manageable and beneficial in preparing for the annual performance statements…. The mid‑cycle review provides meaningful assurance over performance information for decision-making and accurate performance reporting for the Portfolio Budget Statements.[36]

2.37DAFF advised in response to the Committee’s written questions that it has begun implementing periodic performance monitoring. DAFF stated that it provided quarterly performance reporting to its executive and six-monthly performance reporting to the Executive Board for ‘review and discussion.’[37]

2.38AGD also advised the Committee in response to written questions that it was introducing a monitoring stage to its performance management framework which would include periodic reporting of performance information to senior executives against expected results.[38]

Methodologies and supporting information used to report against performance measures

2.39Section 16EA(b) of the PGPA Rule requires that the performance measures for an entity must use sources of information and methodologies that are reliable and verifiable. Part of this involves having appropriate records of the information used to make assessments.

2.40As discussed in chapter one, ANAO identified 21 significant or moderate audit findings across the six audited entities in the 2021–22 performance statements audits. Fourteen (67 per cent) of these significant or moderate findings related to the use of reliable and verifiable methodologies and data sources to support the reported results of individual performance measures. This accounted for the majority of significant or moderate findings by ANAO in the audit.[39]

2.41The lack of reliable methodologies, data sources and information also contributed to the vast majority of qualified audit conclusions received by three of the entities, as shown in Table 2.1.

Note a: Due to Machinery of Government changes, performance measures for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, or the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment now relate to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

Source: Australian National Audit Office.

2.42This was a common theme from the 2020–21 performance statements audit pilot where the ANAO identified a number of significant and moderate findings relating to the methodologies and supporting information of the in the three entities audited (AGD, DSS and DVA).[40] In its report of the 2021–22 performance statements audits ANAO identified improvements in this space for some entities, such as AGD’s survey methodologies and supporting records to support its performance measures. However, overall unreliable or unverifiable information or methodologies remained a concern.[41]

2.43For example, DSS’s performance measure for its ‘Be Connected’ program measured the number of learners in the program. The ANAO found that this measure did not have a robust methodology or supporting information, and the results could not be verified. Therefore, this result could not be relied upon, even with the caveat added by DSS that this did not reporting did not include learners who did not register.[42]

2.44DSS advised the Committee that as a result of the requirements of the Performance Framework the department was accelerating its work to establish better data assurance and controls.[43] DAFF also advised the Committee it was working to improve its performance reporting by amending the methodology or data sources of some performance measures in accordance with the requirements of the PGPA Rule.[44]

2.45At the 28 July public hearing, the DVA advised the Committee that it ‘is on a journey’ in developing its performance statements reporting and was developing systems, methodologies, tools and data to report in its measures in a way that is reliable and verifiable.[45] DCCEEW expressed similar views on the importance of using information sources and methodologies that were reliable and verifiable.[46]

2.46Education advised the Committee in response to written questions that it was implementing a range of actions to address ANAO’s audit findings related to issues with robust methodologies and completeness and accuracy of performance reporting. These included refining templates and internal data quality assurance processes and reviewing performance measures to ensure they remain appropriate.[47]

Performance measures for the Government’s agriculture objective

2.47The ANAO issued qualified audit findings for the performance statements of three audited entities, including the then Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE), which due to a MOG change has now become DAFF. This qualification was unique from the other two entities, as in addition to the qualification ANAO identified that then DAWE’s reporting on seven of its performance measures relating to its Agriculture objective did not meet the requirements of the PGPA Rule.

2.48As a result of this, then DAWE’s performance statements did not enable the user to form an accurate assessment of the department’s performance, which is the purpose of this part of the publication.[48] The performance measures and the reasons for ANAO’s qualifications are as listed in table 2.2.

Source: Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, Audits of the Annual Performance Statements of Australian Government Entities — 2021–22.

2.49The ANAO also qualified its finding for three of DAWE’s non-agriculture performance measures related to biosecurity detections and the management of World and National Heritage-listed properties.[49] The ANAO did not specify that these performance measures did not comply with the PGPA Rule.

2.50The ANAO stated at the public hearing there were three key themes of issues which stood out in then DAWE’s performance statements audit:

One [theme] was around the gaps in the performance data and the methodologies that underpinned the performance information. When we saw those gaps, it was very difficult to get assurance of the reliability of the reported results.

The second theme that really stood out for us was around record keeping and the evidence base. In some instances we couldn't identify the records that underpinned the results that were reported. Again, it's very difficult to provide assurance.

The third theme was around that maturity point that the Auditor-General referred to earlier about the preparation process. With the capacity of the central team to coordinate and work across the organisation, there was a capacity constraint, but there was also a capability issue within the program areas that are typically the program owners and then the measure owners. There was a capability gap there, and they didn't really understand what success looked like for a number of those programs and couldn't articulate the performance information in a robust way.[50]

2.51The ANAO stated that the central issue with the agriculture performance measures was that the agriculture group lacked a mature performance reporting methodology. The ANAO advised the Committee that entities ‘need a mature methodology to start to build systems and processes and put some rigour behind the data.’ The ANAO commented further that this was in contrast to the then DAWE’s environment group which had complex methodologies, collections of data and mature processes for its performance reporting.[51]

2.52The ANAO further advised the Committee that it highlighted then DAWE’s non‑compliance with the PGPA Rule in its qualification as it was a more systemic problem than the issues resulting in qualifications for the two other entities (DSS and DVA).[52]

2.53Finance, in its stewardship role to support compliance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and the PGPA Rule, including the performance statements requirements advised that it did not disagree with the ANAO’s assessment, stating ‘we take the [2021-22 Performance Statements] audit at face value and the conclusions that the Auditor‑General has drawn.’[53]

2.54DAFF submitted to the Committee that it ‘has taken action to implement appropriate changes including developing an enterprise performance and reporting framework.’ This included amending the wording, methodology or data sources of some performance measures, and removing some measures that were not seen as meaningful in demonstrating the department’s performance.[54]

2.55DAFF also advised the Committee that it has developed a new purpose and objectives which were included in its corporate plan which it considers the primary planning document for the department. DAFF stated it reviewed the relevant performance measures from DAWE and updated or created new measures to align with its new purpose and objectives more closely.[55] At the Committee’s 28 July 2023 public hearing, DAFF commented:

The challenge for us was how to collect that data in a way that was verifiable/auditable and that wasn't based on discussions with commercial parties and those types of things. Our data collection and our record keeping is repeatable. When an auditor comes in, they can pick up the record, as the Auditor-General said, and say, 'We're comfortable with that.' That's a journey we're on. We learnt a lot through [the 2021-22 Performance Statements] audit.[56]

Committee Comment

2.56The ANAO’s findings on DVA’s inability to report against two of its performance measures related to the maintenance of war graves were concerning. DVA’s maintenance of war graves is at the core of the department’s purpose to support and commemorate those who serve or have served in the defence of Australia, and reporting against this is key for the Parliament and the public having confidence that DVA is fulfilling this important role.

2.57The Committee agrees with the ANAO’s position that entities should include performance measures that they can report on, but it is better to not report than to make an inaccurate or unsubstantiated assessment, which is what DVA did for its war graves performance measures. The Committee appreciated DVA’s contribution to the public hearings and accountability for the assurance and data issues related to these performance measures, and the reassurance that it is taking action to address these and improve the accuracy of its performance reporting. The Committee looks forward to seeing the impacts of these improvements over the future performance statement audit cycles.

2.58It was clear from the submissions and evidence at the public hearing that MOG changes had a significant impact on the audited entities, and the new entities created as a result. The evidence showed that the different levels of maturity and capability across the public sector in relation to performance statements make the MOG process difficult. It is positive to note the changes observed by Finance in the renewed interest in developing performance statements capability since the ANAO began its audit work. However, the Committee notes there are still improvements in this culture and capability needed across the sector.

2.59There will undoubtably always be significant impacts of MOG’s on departments, however the Committee agrees that uplifting the capability across the sector will help minimise the significance of these impacts on entities’ performance statements.

2.60The effectiveness of performance measures in telling the reader how well an entity is performing is not only critical information for the Parliament and public, but also for the staff and accountable authority of the entity itself. Linking these measures to an entity’s purpose not only meets the requirements of the Commonwealth Performance Framework but also allows staff to see their contribution to an organisation’s performance. This will be an ongoing discussion as entities mature in their understanding of performance reporting and how this can be used in normal business operations to guide and organisation activities and awareness of its performance.

2.61The ANAO’s audit identified the need for an enterprise level approach to performance reporting, and as a part of that periodic reporting. This strategic approach is to encourage entities to better use performance information rather than viewing this as a compliance activity. The Committee’s interpretation of the ANAO’s suggestion for such a framework is that this aligns with Treasury’s comments. That the performance reporting does not necessary need to be named an enterprise level framework, but should address the components highlighted by ANAO and be appropriate for the organisation.

2.62The evidence gathered shows there is a growing maturity and understanding of performance reporting in these entities and that many of them are developing processes which include aspects of enterprise level reporting and oversight.

2.63The ANAO also identified periodic monitoring of performance information as an area for improvement, to not only improve the performance statements but also as a key input for business activities and improvement. Despite the benefits of this ANAO found two of the six entities audited did not conduct periodic monitoring, and that the four that did monitored at different frequencies. Receiving regular performance information supports entities’ maturing approach to performance and transitioning from compliance to full use of this performance information to direct resources and identify and address issues early.

2.64The Committee considers periodic monitoring of performance information by entities as a key part of maturing their performance reporting processes. The Committee intends to continue its examination of the ANAO’s performance statements audit products in future years and is interested to see how entities continue to develop their periodic monitoring processes and use of this information.

2.65The findings of the pilot program and the 2021–22 performance statements audits both showed that the use of unreliable or unverifiable methodologies and supporting information for performance measures continues to be an issue. This will be an issue that the Committee will examine as ANAO’s performance statements audits continue and is interested to see the trends in these findings for new entities to this audit process, compared to existing entities.

2.66The Committee noted the difference between a general trend across entities for issues relating to the quality of supporting information and methodologies for individual performance measures and systemic issues in this space, and others found in the agriculture portfolio.

2.67The systemic issues in the seven performance measures for the agriculture objective mean, much like the DVA performance measures for its war graves objective, that the reader couldn’t accurately assess the performance against a significant objective for the department. The Committee understands that DAFF, as the department now responsible for these objectives and resulting performance measures, has taken actions to improve its approach to both performance measures more generally, and those for the agriculture objectives, including by updating its purpose and objectives. The Committee looks forward to seeing the impact of these changes in future ANAO audits.

2.68The systemic issues identified by ANAO, as well as examples of better practice are valuable lessons learnt for the public sector. Sharing these lessons can help improve the performance reporting capability across the public sector, and eventually reduce the impact of MOG changes on entities’ performance reporting.

2.69The Committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office:

• prepares a summary of the trends, key systemic issues, and examples of better practice in performance reporting identified in the 2021–22 performance statements audits and distributes this across the public sector, and
• considers and reports back to the Committee on the value of making this an annual product.

Footnotes

[1]Auditor-General Report No. 23 2021–22, Audits of the Annual Performance Statements of Australian Government Entities — Pilot Program 2020–21, p. 36.

[2]Auditor-General Report No. 23 2021–22, p. 37.

[3]Mr Grant Heihr, Auditor-General, Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, pages. 13‑14.

ASAE 3000, which ANAO uses as its auditing standard for performance statements audits states regarding the materiality of issues that ‘misstatements, including omissions, are considered to be material if they, individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to influence relevant decisions of intended users taken on the basis of the subject matter information.’

Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, Standard on Assurance Engagements ASAE 3000, Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information, May 2017, p. 46.

[4]Mr Heihr, Auditor-General, ANAO, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 14.

[5]Ms Rona Mellor PSM, Deputy Auditor-General, ANAO, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 17.

[6]Ms Teena Blewitt, Acting Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer, Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, pages. 12-13.

[7]Mr Tim Bayliss, Director, Office of Australian War Graves, Department of Veteran’s Affairs, CommitteeHansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 13.

[8]Auditor-General Report No. 23 2021–22, Audits of the Annual Performance Statements of Australian Government Entities — Pilot Program 2020–21, p. 20.

[9]Ms Cindy Briscoe, Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 4.

[10]Ms Briscoe, DAFF, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 3.

[11]Ms Briscoe, DAFF, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 5.

[12]Mr Scott Sharp, Chief Financial Officer, Attorney‑General’s Department (AGD), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 21.

[13]Mr Sharp, AGD, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 21.

[14]Mr Nathan Williamson, Deputy Secretary Governance and Resource Management Group, Department of Finance (Finance), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 6.

[15]Mr Heihr, Auditor-General, ANAO, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 17.

[16]ANAO, Submission 8, p. [2].

[17]Ms Michelle Croker, Division Head, Portfolio Strategy, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 5.

[18]Mr Pat Hetherington, Deputy Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, Department of Social Services (DSS), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 15.

[19]Dr Angela Barrett, Chief Operating Officer, Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p.22.

[20]Mr Williamson, Finance, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 6; Ms Dana Sutton, Branch Head, Ministerial Liaison and Governance Branch, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 6; Ms Briscoe, DAFF, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 3.

[21]Mr Sharp, AGD, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 23.

[22]Mr Matthew Gilliand, Acting Assistant Secretary, External Budgets, Strategy and Performance Branch, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 23; Mr Marcus Markovic, Deputy Secretary, Corporate and Enabling Services, Department of Education Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 24.

[23]Mr Williamson, Finance, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 10; Ms Croker, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 10; Ms Briscoe, DAFF, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p.10.

[24]Mr Heihr, Auditor-General, ANAO, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 10.

[25]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, pages. 39-40 and 43-44.

[26]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, p. 44.

[27]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, p. 44.

[28]Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, Submission 2, p. 3.

[29]Treasury, Supplementary Submission 7.1, pages 2-3.

[30]Treasury, Supplementary Submission 7.1, p. 2.

[31]Department of Education, Submission 5, p. 3.

[32]AGD, Submission 10, p. [3].

[33]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, pages. 43-45.

[34]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, p. 44

[35]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, p. 44

[36]Treasury, Supplementary Submission 7.1, pages 1-2.

[37]DAFF, Supplementary Submission 2.1, p. [1].

[38]AGD, Submission 10, p. [3].

[39]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, p. 26.

[40]Auditor-General Report No. 23 2021–22, p. 64.

[41]Auditor-General Report No. 23 2021–22, p. 42.

[42]Auditor-General Report No. 23 2021–22, pages. 34‑35.

DSS included in its explanation of this measures that ‘the reported number of learners is not reflective of the total number of learners accessing the Be Connected program. Learners who independently accessed the Be Connected online learner portal (developed and managed by the eSafety Commissioner) and learners who received support from a Be Connected Network Partner but did not register are not reflected in these numbers.’

Department of Social Services, 2021-22 Annual Report, p. 76, available at: https://www.dss.gov.au/publications-articles-corporate-publications-annual-reports/department-of-social-services-annual-report-2021-22, accessed on 22 August 2023.

[43]Department of Social Services, Submission 1, p. 6.

[44]Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Submission 2, p. 4.

[45]Mr Glen Casson, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 16.

[46]Ms Croker, DCCEEW, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 5.

[47]Education, Supplementary Submission 5.2, p. [3].

[48]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, p. 32.

[49]Auditor-General Report No. 13 2022–23, p. 34.

[50]Mr George Sotiropoulos, Group Executive Director, Performance Statements Audit Services Group, ANAO, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 3.

[51]Mr Michael White, Executive Director, Performance Statements Audit Services Group, Australian National Audit Office, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 3.

[52]Mr White, ANAO, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 3.

[53]Mr Williamson, Finance, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 3.

[54]Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Submission 2, pages. 3-4.

[55]Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Submission 2, p. 4.

[56]Mr Matthew Koval, Acting Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 28 July 2023, p. 4.