Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (18:32): I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I find it quite fascinating that the Australian National Audit Office has been audited. This happens on a regular basis, but I think it is worthwhile reviewing the review of the reviewer, if I might put it that way. The audit was conducted by a gentleman called Mr Geoff Wilson, who is the CEO of KPMG and is described here as the Independent Auditor. From my own experience of the ANAO—and, I imagine, that of many others here—it is not surprising to find that the summary conclusion is: The ANAO’s planning and scoping of the annual performance audit program and individual performance audits is being undertaken in an efficient and effective manner. The Independent Auditor has not produced any formal recommendations but has come up with four suggestions about ways the ANAO might improve their work. These included the way the ANAO go about individual audit planning and scoping—looking at the framework that they put around these. The Independent Auditor has suggested 'formalising the existing checkpoint for the review of the audit work plan.' An audit work plan is developed by a working group within the ANAO once they have decided to proceed with an audit. The Independent Auditor also looked at how the ANAO should improve the documentation of internal consultation within the IT Audit branch and suggested there should be 'further support and training in the professional services automation system.' I was pleased to find, in looking at this report—and I must admit it is the first year that I have looked at this report—that Australia and Canada are amongst some of the few international audit organisations that do use international auditing standards in undertaking their performance audit activities. The Internal Auditor has produced a table giving a high-level comparison of the ANAO and the Canadian Office of the Auditor-General. The review makes the point that there are some differences between what the two groups do. For instance, the Australian National Audit Office uses a rolling work program—every 12 months suggestions are sought on what should go into what is called the blue book, which is where the ANAO keep their plan of proposed performance audits. It is a rolling thing. Canada has a different planning system where the work is primarily generated out of the Office of the Auditor General itself and they come up with a five-year plan. The comparison made by the Independent Auditor found that the ANAO produces between 45 and 55 performance audits and currently produces the following audit products: financial statement audit opinions, regulatory assurance reports, better practice guides and the Defence Materiel Organisation major projects report. That compares with the Canadian OAG, which produces between 26 and 33 performance audits and undertakes financial audits, special examinations, sustainable development monitoring activities—an interesting one, I thought, for an auditing organisation which has come primarily out of a financial and regulatory system—environmental petitions and assessment of agency performance reports. There was close alignment between the two organisations in some areas. I suggest that we have a fantastic system right now and that the way the ANAO relates to all parliamentary committees—primarily to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit—is a very strong and robust part of our system. I am concerned sometimes by the limits that appear to be placed on the ANAO in terms of the way they go about their audits. They often look at the way legislation, a department or someone else has performed according to the standards that were set. They do not go outside that framework. One example I can think of off the top of my head was in relation to whether government advertising meets the guidelines established by the government. Whilst it was all very well to say, 'This is the criteria established by the government for government advertising and they meet that criteria,' there was no criticism of the criteria per se. I would suggest that without assessing the semiotics around an advertisement—who was in it, whether the Australian flag was in it or whatever—it is very hard to say that an advertisement is not trying to influence people towards a particular party point of view if you do not do a semiotic analysis of an advertisement. Of course that was outside what the ANAO was allowed to do in that situation. I am delighted that this report exists and I am delighted that Mr Wilson has so carefully analysed the overall performance of the ANAO in regard to how it develops the projects that are in the blue book, how it scopes out what it will do and also in regard to the individual audits that the ANAO undertakes. I have also been pleased by the response of the ANAO to the suggestions of the independent auditor. There is one I could read out here but it has about 12 abbreviations involving things like PASGs, AASGs and AWPs. Primarily, what it is trying to say is that the ANAO should build a few more steps into the work plans that they develop for undertaking specific audits so that there is a visibility of who is doing what between the executive that do the consultation, the public audit group and individual audit group. I am trying to look up an abbreviation as I speak. It is suggested that the performance audit services group who would oversight the development of each individual audit and the assurance audit services group, the AASG, who oversight how well each audit is undertaken need to consult more visibly. I am pleased to see that that idea of making sure that there is a complete knowledge transfer from the group that decided how to do it to the group that oversights how well the audit was achieved is a recommendation that the ANAO has accepted and will be implementing. As I said, I think the ANAO does an extremely good job and I am pleased that we have the ability to oversight how it has done. Perhaps one small omission in my view from this report is that there is no indication of how the independent auditor is chosen and to whom the independent auditor reports. This is something that might like to be considered for future reference. Question agreed to.