AUDITOR GENERAL f o r We s t e r n A u s t r a l i a
Report on Ministerial Portfolios at November 25, 2003
Report No 10 December 2003
AUDITOR GENERAL f o r We s t e r n A u s t r a l i a
THE SPEAKER THE PRESIDENT LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
I submit this Report under section 95 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985 (FAAA).
This Report includes:
opinions issued under the FAAA on or before November 25, 2003 on the controls, financial statements and performance indicators of departments, statutory authorities and subsidiary bodies with reporting dates between June 30, 2003 and July 31, 2003
opinions issued on corporatised bodies reporting under provisions mirroring the Corporations Act 2001, cemetery boards reporting under the Cemeteries Act and audits of other entities requested by the Treasurer
commentary on public sector auditing, financial management and reporting, and control and accounting issues
results of an audit of act of grace, ex-gratia and like payments made by government agencies.
D D R PEARSON AUDITOR GENERAL December 3, 2003
2 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Contents
Auditor General’s Foreword 4
Part 1: Changes in Public Sector Auditing 5
Issue of more reader friendly audit opinions and a new Audit Practice Statement
Part 2: Financial Statements and Performance Indicators 6
Quality and timeliness during the 2003 audit cycle
Part 3: Control Issues 9
Review of:
- information systems
- expenditure, including corporate credit cards
- asset management of computer hardware, furniture, plant and equipment
Part 4: Act of Grace, Ex-Gratia and Like Payments 16
Results of an audit of act of grace and ex-gratia payments by agencies
Part 5: Corporate Governance 19
Follow-up of remuneration disclosure and Statement of Corporate Intent matters previously reported
Part 6: Accounting Issues 20
Asset valuation and International Financial Reporting Standards
Part 7: Summary of Audit Results 22
Results of audit opinions issued under the FAAA for agencies with reporting dates between June 30, 2003 and July 31, 2003 including Ministerial Portfolio table
Appendices:
Audit Opinion Template 36
Audit Practice Statement 38
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 3
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Auditor General’s Foreword
Annual attest audits are primarily conducted under the Financial Administration and Audit
Act (FAAA) to form an opinion on the controls, financial statements and performance
indicators of individual agencies. Not all matters of significance will be identified during the
course of such routine procedures. However, any such issues disclosed are at least reported
to management who remain responsible for taking appropriate corrective action.
This report opens with details of changes to the form of audit opinions and the approach to
public sector auditing. Details of control and accounting issues noted during this audit cycle
as well as the results of a review of act of grace and ex-gratia payments are also provided.
A summary is provided of the audits completed at agencies with reporting periods ending
between June 30, 2003 and July 31, 2003 including:
audit opinions issued on controls, financial statements and performance indicators for
39 departments and 105 statutory authorities (including the final audits of six
abolished agencies) with
details of the 10 qualified opinions issued.
audit opinions issued on financial statements for
Treasurer’s Annual Statements
10 corporatised bodies
9 subsidiary entities
6 cemetery boards
8 request audits.
Details of each audit qualification and comments on progress made to resolve the
qualification appear in Tables 6 and 7 of this Report. The full audit opinion appears in the
annual report of each agency which should be tabled in Parliament by the Minister within 21
days of the audit opinion being issued.
4 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Part 1: Changes in Public Sector Auditing
Audit opinions are now issued in a more reader friendly format.
A new Audit Practice Statement has been issued.
Issue of More Reader Friendly Audit Opinions Audit opinions are now issued in a shorter, easier to read format. The actual audit opinion and
any audit qualifications, appear first. Responsibilities of the audited agency and a summary of
Audit’s role are more clearly defined. Headings are used to improve clarity and assist readers.
Non-essential information has been removed and most audit opinions are likely to be less than
one page. The standard audit opinion template for a department is at Appendix 1.
New Audit Practice Statement For the first time a consolidated Audit Practice Statement covering all aspects of the audit
mandate has been prepared and is provided to Parliament at Appendix 2. This replaces the
Practice Statements tabled in Parliament in 1996 and 1997 which separately presented the
approaches to the assurance and performance aspects of the mandate.
This new Statement provides a concise summary of:
why we audit
what we audit
how we audit.
It is provided, in accordance with Section 95(1)(b) of the FAAA, which requires Parliament to
be informed of any major change in the extent or character of audits.
The Practice Statement can also be obtained from the Office website at www.audit.wa.gov.au/.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 5
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Part 2: Financial Statements and Performance Indicators
There is scope for most agencies to improve the quality and timeliness of financial
statements and performance indicators.
There was a significant increase in the total State assets audited within three months of
balance date.
Quality and Timeliness of Reporting A number of larger more commercially orientated agencies have been preparing good quality
financial statements in a timely manner for several years. This represents better practice
discharge of annual accountability obligations. In the 2002-03 audit cycle the 2001
Machinery of Government related administrative changes continued to cause transitional
annual financial and performance reporting challenges for most Departments, though at a
lesser level than occurred in 2002.
Aside from this, a significant proportion of agencies continue to submit poor quality financial
statements and performance indicators with numerous technical and typographical errors,
irrelevant, inconsistent or missing note disclosures and poor quality supporting working
papers. In addition, the unavailability of key agency staff due to leave and other commitments
at critical stages of the audit process complicated the audit task and required additional audit
resources and time to enable the formation of an audit opinion.
Whilst some agencies were late most agencies continued to submit signed financial
statements and performance indicators on the statutory date.
Agencies submitting financial statements and performance indicators after the statutory date
are summarised in Table 1.
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Depts Stat Health Total Depts Stat Health Total Depts Stat Health Total
Auth Sector Auth Sector Auth Sector
Financial statements and where appropriate performance 3 9 11 23 8 15 42 65 4 11 0 15 indicators not received by the statutory date
Expressed as a percentage of all 6% 9% 20% 11% 20% 14% 95% 33% 10% 10% 0% 10% agencies in that category
Table 1: Proportion of agencies not meeting reporting timelines Source: OAG
Of the 15 agencies in Table 1, all four departments and six of the statutory authorities had
applied to their Ministers for an extension of time to submit their financial statements and
performance indicators. Of the remaining five agencies, three submitted their financial
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6
statements and performance indicators in the week after the statutory reporting date with the
Potato Marketing Corporation of Western Australia and Professional Standards Council
submitting more than a week late.
In 2003, agencies submitting on the final or statutory date comprised:
73 per cent of departments on their August 15 deadline (56 per cent in 2002)
64 per cent of statutory authorities on their August 31 deadline (52 per cent in 2002).
By contrast, 11 per cent of departments (four of 37) and 14 per cent of statutory authorities (16
of 113) submitted a week or more in advance of the statutory deadline. These agencies typically
submitted good quality financial statements and performance indicators supported by reliable
working papers and ensured the availability of key staff during the audit process. In consequence
they received clear audit opinions and were able to table their annual report in Parliament within
three to four months of year end.
Improvement in the timeliness of health sector submission is also pleasing, with the benefit of
six reporting entities in 2003 compared with 44 in 2002 being evident. This reduction in
reporting entities resulted from the amalgamation of non-metropolitan health service agencies
into three regional health agencies.
Over the years a number of agencies have developed the commendable practice of submitting
their finalised, but sometimes uncertified, financial statements and performance indicators to
Audit well in advance of the statutory deadline. This enables earlier commencement of the audit
process and provides the Accountable Officer or Authority with added confidence when
subsequently certifying the financial statements and performance indicators.
The exemplar better practice agencies for 2002-03 were:
Departments
Management
Legal Aid Commission
Lotteries Commission
Metropolitan Cemeteries Board
State Housing Commission
Department of Conservation and Land
Department of the Registrar, Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission
Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services
Police Service
Statutory Authorities/Corporations
Disability Services Commission
Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia
Fremantle Port Authority
Insurance Commission of Western Australia
South West Development Commission
Water Corporation
Western Australian Treasury Corporation
Western Power
Table 2: Better practice agencies for timeliness and quality of their 2002-03 financial statements and performance indicators
Source: OAG
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 7
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 2: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (continued)
The following table provides details of the 22 agencies (14 per cent) that submitted their draft
or finalised 2002-03 financial statements significantly ahead of statutory deadlines, to enable
earlier commencement of the audit process.
Weeks after Reporting Date
Number of Departments
Number of Statutory
Authorities/ Corporations
Total Number of Agencies
Within 4 weeks 4 7 11
Within 6 weeks * 8 8
Within 7 weeks * 3 3
Table 3: Timeliness of departments, statutory authorities and corporations submitting financial statements and performance indicators * statutory period after reporting date is approximately six weeks for departments and eight weeks for
statutory authorities. Source: OAG
With the implementation of computerised accounting systems capable of producing accrual
accounting based reports, it is a concern that 86 per cent of agencies have not progressed to
produce more timely annual financial statements and performance indicators. The experience
at year end reflects adversely on the standard of internal management reporting and
oversight occurring during the year. By contrast, in the better practice agencies named in
Table 2, rigorous and transparent monthly management reporting of quality management
information throughout the year was evident.
Despite the slow and sometimes late supply of financial statements and performance
indicators, significant effort by audit staff and contractors enabled audit opinions covering
assets of $55.3 billion, or approximately 75 per cent of total State assets to be issued by
September 30, 2003. This represents a 39 per cent increase on 2001-02 when 54 per cent of
the total State assets were audited by September 30, 2002.
8 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Part 3: Control Issues
The statutory requirement for an explicit opinion on controls in the public sector reflects the
need for assurance about the integrity of the use of taxpayer’s money. In forming individual
opinions, the breadth and level of testing is determined using our audit methodology to assess
an agency’s operations, internal controls and risks. The audit process is however permeated
by judgement and most audit evidence is persuasive rather than conclusive. In addition,
consistent with auditing standards, some business areas at an agency are not tested in detail
each year.
In consequence, further complementary audits of the reliability of systems and procedures are
undertaken. These audits provide added assurance that the individual professional
judgements and conclusions reached during the course of annual attest audits are soundly
based and consistently applied across agencies.
Whilst control weaknesses vary across agencies, a common issue in 2002-03 continued to be
information technology controls. An updated summary of these findings over the last three
years appears in Table 4.
In addition, extended audit testing was conducted at selected agencies to ascertain trends in
relation to:
expenditure, at 11 agencies
asset management of computer hardware, furniture, plant and equipment, at eight
agencies.
The findings summarised below provide a basis for agencies to review their own individual
policies, procedures and practices and, where necessary, take appropriate action.
Information Technology Controls
Audit Conclusions Serious access control and other information system weaknesses exist at approximately
half of the agencies audited.
Computer access and security controls and controls over modifications to computer systems
continue to be a common weakness across government agencies. Most of the agencies that
were advised of these weaknesses last year have still not adequately addressed the problem.
Computer systems are vulnerable to a range of operational, natural disaster and other
inadvertent or deliberately caused disruptive events. Although the possibility of these events
is generally remote, the importance of many computer systems to everyday government
operations makes it essential that agencies have effective disaster recovery plans (DRPs) in
place. Most of the agencies identified last year as having inadequate DRPs have progressed
their development. Approximately one third of all the agencies whose DRPs were audited this
year have effective plans in place.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 9
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 2: CONTROL ISSUES (continued)
Recommendations Agencies should ensure that they have adequate computer access and security controls and
that computer system modifications are authorised before implementation. In addition,
priority needs to be given to completing the establishment and testing of DRPs for all critical
computer systems.
Review and Findings Information systems are critical in supporting and enabling the operations of most agencies.
Consequently, the audit of key information technology (IT) controls is seen as a priority to
provide assurance regarding the level of reliance that can be placed on the integrity, reliability
and availability of IT systems.
Not all key IT controls at agencies are reviewed by Audit each year. Rather, they are reviewed
on a rotational basis. Issues identified in previous years are also followed up to ensure
satisfactory resolution as shown in Table 4.
Findings 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Occurrences % Occurrences % Occurrences %
Access and Security
Inadequate password 27 out of 41 66 14 out of 26 54 18 out of 22 81 security (13 of 14 from 2001-02)
Staff access not being 23 out of 41 56 15 out of 26 58 19 out of 23 82 properly approved and (13 of 15 from 2001-02) reviewed
Access logs not being 23 out of 41 56 11 out of 26 42 14 out of 19 73 reviewed and monitored (10 of 11 from 2001-02)
Other Controls
Inadequate controls 8 out of 15 53 12 out of 20 60 12 out of 19 63 over system modifications (8 of 12 from 2001-02)
No effective disaster 16 out of 17 94 20 out of 21 95 20 out of 28 71 recovery plans (14 of 20 from 2001-02)
Inadequate controls over Not reviewed Not reviewed 16 out of 22 72 infrastructure modifications
Table 4: Summary of common information technology control findings at government agencies Ninety per cent of agencies had at least one control weakness with approximately half of these agencies having serious weaknesses.
Source: OAG
10 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Access and Security Controls Computer access and security controls such as passwords are designed to prevent
unauthorised changes and disclosure or loss of valuable and confidential information. It is
disappointing that there has been insufficient improvement in these controls and that the high
incidence of poor control over modifications to computer system applications continues.
Inadequate controls over modifications to the information technology infrastructure, including
to the network, database structures and operating system software, is also of concern.
The existence of such weaknesses means unauthorised or inappropriate access and changes
that affect the performance, integrity and availability of critical computer systems could be
undertaken, and in many cases not be detected.
Disaster Recovery Planning In order to provide for the ongoing availability of critical information systems, agencies should
develop and test DRPs. These plans should identify systems critical to the operations of the
agency and prioritise the recovery processes accordingly. The development and testing of
DRPs can take some time. Last year, many of the agencies had begun the process of
developing suitable DRPs, a few having reached the stage where back-up facilities in place
only required final testing.
This year, 30 per cent of those agencies previously identified as having inadequate DRPs had
adequately developed and tested their DRPs whilst a further 55 per cent had taken action to
further progress the development of suitable DRPs.
Expenditure
Audit Conclusions Expenditure controls generally operated effectively, though some weaknesses in relation
to corporate credit cards require particular vigilance.
Payments made by the 11 agencies reviewed were generally satisfactory with relatively few
instances noted of deficiencies in authorisation, supporting documentation or evidence of
checking prior to payment.
In relation to corporate credit card based expenditure, weaknesses in controls were identified
at four of the 11 agencies.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 11
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 2: CONTROL ISSUES (continued)
Recommendations Agencies should ensure:
credit card expenditure is approved in a timely manner and cards are cancelled if
cardholders consistently do not provide timely support for their transactions
cardholders provide adequate evidence of the purpose and nature of their expenditure
cardholders’ expenditure is approved by their supervisor or a more senior officer
cash travel allowances provided to cardholders are reconciled to their entitlement and
the credit card transactions they incurred while travelling
cardholders’ need for a corporate credit card is periodically reviewed, and usage
agreements between cardholders and the agency are in place.
Review and Findings The following summarises findings in relation to corporate credit card controls, in descending
order of their incidence. Although the final two issues were only detected by audit sampling
at one agency, they are nevertheless noteworthy:
Timely verification that all transactions were for valid agency expenditure.
To avoid penalties from card providers, agencies normally pay monthly accounts prior to
confirming individual cardholders’ expenditure as valid and correct. It is therefore critical
that subsequent review and approval of the expenditure of individual cardholders be
verified in a timely manner, consistent with the monthly billing cycle.
Audit samples showed a small, but unacceptable percentage of credit card expenditures
that were approved by the cardholders’ supervisors more than two months after the
agency had paid the card provider. At one agency expenditure from up to 14 months ago
had not been approved, and at another agency expenditure for one cardholder had not
been approved for seven months. This was because cardholders often failed to lodge the
details of the expenditure in a timely manner. Without details of expenditure, these
transactions cannot be approved by supervisors and expensed appropriately in the
agency’s accounting records and financial reports.
A sound control is to cancel a card if the cardholder does not submit evidence in a timely
manner. Audit noted inconsistent application of this principle across agencies.
Often only the electronic funds transfer (EFT) docket was provided by the cardholder as
evidence. This contains insufficient details of the goods/services on which to base an
approval and does not meet the requirements of a Supplier Tax Invoice for GST purposes.
In particular, for hospitality expenditure, there was insufficient explanation of the nature
or purpose of the expenditure.
12 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Cardholder agreements should be in place and users’ continuing need for a credit card
should be monitored.
Some agencies do not require all cardholders to sign an agreement, specifying the
purposes for which the cards should be used. In addition, some agencies do not
periodically review cardholders’ ongoing need for a card.
Cardholders should not approve their own expenditure.
At one agency, internal controls had not revealed that a significant number of cardholders
had incurred their own card expenditure from time to time or subordinates had incurred
the expenditure of more senior officers. This is contrary to sound practice and increases
the potential for inappropriate expenditure being approved.
Credit card expenditure should be reconciled with entitlements, for example, travel
allowances.
At one agency, there was no procedure to reconcile cash travel allowances provided to
cardholders against the credit card transactions they incurred while travelling. Although
audit sampling did not detect misuse, the absence of reconciliations increased the risk of
cardholders using their corporate cards and also retaining their cash allowance.
Asset Management of Computer Hardware, Furniture, Plant and Equipment
Audit Conclusions Asset management is generally satisfactory though a range of issues for attention were
identified at most of the agencies in the audit sample.
Audit testing at eight agencies resulted in positive assurance that:
asset disposals were properly authorised
lower value attractive items were appropriately safeguarded by way of property register
and periodic stocktakes.
The audit disclosed good practice asset management at three agencies:
Department of Agriculture
Police Service
State Housing Commission.
However, a range of deficiencies were noted at the other five agencies reviewed.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 13
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 2: CONTROL ISSUES (continued)
Recommendations
Agency management should place a higher priority on recording and managing public
property, and specifically:
review and reconcile asset records regularly to confirm that acquisitions, movements
and disposals have been recorded
reiterate asset capitalisation principles to staff and review expenditure accounts to
identify asset acquisitions that have been incorrectly expensed
commission thorough periodic stocktakes and follow-up discrepancies immediately
consider, and where necessary, approve asset write-offs in accordance with the FAAA.
Review and Findings Unsatisfactory findings at five of the eight agencies audited, included:
Errors identified in asset records at three agencies.
Audit sampled assets from the asset register and checked that they existed. At two
agencies, although agency staff assisted auditors, some assets could not be located. This
was either because the agencies had not recorded sufficient details of the assets, or the
assets had been moved without updating the asset register. Eventually, after much effort,
the agencies were able to confirm the existence of these assets. At one agency, some
assets sampled ‘from the floor’ for tracing to the asset records, had not been recorded in
the asset register.
It is important to note that inaccurate records also increase the cost of agencies’ own
stocktakes.
If agencies do not have accurate records of their assets, theft may pass undetected or
asset holdings may be misreported in the financial statements.
Asset stocktakes were not always thorough, with agencies failing to locate all assets and
confirm that asset records were accurate.
At one agency, stocktake discrepancies were not investigated in a timely manner, and
were only followed up by management when Audit raised the issue. At another agency,
Audit located four assets that were not located by agency staff during their stocktake. At
a third agency, there was inadequate separation of duties because the officer who
maintains the asset register also performed the stocktake on his own.
Periodic stocktakes are an important control as they help identify errors in asset records,
any unrecorded losses, destruction or theft, and opportunities to put assets to better use
elsewhere in the organisation.
14 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Asset write-offs were given insufficient attention by management.
At one agency, mid-level management approved asset write-offs. This is contrary to the
FAAA and associated Regulations that require write-offs to be approved by the
Accountable Officer or Accountable Authority. At two other agencies, Audit identified
instances where agency staff had concluded that assets were lost/missing, but had not
informed senior management that a formal write-off was necessary.
Some purchases were capitalised as assets where they should have been expensed.
At two agencies, purchases were incorrectly capitalised instead of expensed. Although not
material, asset balances, depreciation, expenses and the capital user charge would have
been misstated in the financial statements if not identified by Audit. It is of note that at
one of these agencies, and at one other agency, maintenance of the asset register was
entrusted to one person, without checking or review by supervisors. Periodic review by
management should have identified these errors.
The general ledger was infrequently reconciled to the asset records, making the task of
identifying errors more time consuming.
At three agencies, the general ledger was infrequently reconciled to the asset register, with
one of these agencies only performing the reconciliation at year end. Asset records and
the general ledger balances were therefore inaccurate for most of the year.
Even if the asset register is complete and accurate, if the asset reconciliation is not
performed regularly, management is not assured that the general ledger asset balances are
correct.
Depreciation was incorrectly calculated at two agencies.
One of the errors was caused by system problems, and the other related to an asset being
incorrectly classified as a non-depreciable asset.
The following control weaknesses or errors in accounting treatment were identified, each
at one agency only:
There was no review of expenditure accounts to identify incorrect expensing of assets.
Manual journal entries by asset officers were not reviewed and appropriately
authorised. This increased the likelihood of incorrect entries passing undetected.
Some assets were recorded on spreadsheets, rather than in an asset management
system, increasing the likelihood of errors.
For asset disposals, auctioneers’ selling fees were incorrectly offset against the sale
proceeds, for financial reporting purposes.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 15
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Part 4: Act of Grace, Ex-Gratia and Like Payments
Audit Conclusions Agencies overall displayed good practice in justifying and seeking approval for act of
grace and like payments.
The need to obtain ministerial approval for small dollar value act of grace payments
warrants review on grounds of cost effectiveness.
Twenty-eight agencies made 559 Act of Grace (AoG) or ex-gratia payments totalling $3.4
million in the last two years. Justification and proper approvals were found for 93 per cent of
the payments.
Six per cent of AoG payments were small amounts (less than $2 000) with some payments
made for as little as $30. Obtaining ministerial approval for small payments is
administratively inefficient.
Recommendations Agencies making AoG or ex-gratia payments should ensure they comply with the
requirements of the relevant legislation or applicable government guidelines.
Government should consider changing legislation to allow Accountable Officers and
Authorities to approve small AoG payments.
Review and Findings AoG and ex-gratia payments are made by government when it considers that there is a moral
obligation to compensate for loss or damage or it has a responsibility to relieve a person or
body from a financial hardship and that it would be proper and just to do so.
AoG payments are made under the authority of the FAAA and must meet the specific
conditions of Treasurer’s Instruction 319. AoG payments require approval of the responsible
Minister or the Treasurer and the Governor (for payments over $50 000). Ex-gratia payments
are made by agencies under authority of their own Act or as a prerogative of government,
sometimes in accordance with specific government guidelines. Executive government
approval is often not required where the agencies make payments under their own Act.
Information on AoG and ex-gratia payments made by all government agencies in 2001-02
and 2002-03 and universities and TAFE colleges for their 2001 and 2002 academic years was
collected. The review then determined whether:
justification for the payments was evident
proper approval was obtained.
16 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The following table shows the nature, incidence and total amount of each type of payment.
Nature of Payment Number of Total Number Total Amount Agencies of Payments of Payments
Death of officer in line of duty 2 7 $ 1 175 526
Injury of officer in line of duty 1 3 $100 500
Damage or loss of personal property 9 453 $769 977
Departmental Error 7 28 $29 827
Moral Obligation to Compensate 11 27 $133 735
Legal Costs Reimbursement 2 13 $351 779
Miscarriage of Justice 1 3 $535 445
Government Initiative1 1 10 $293 505
Other 4 15 $ 20 338
Total 559 $3 410 632
Table 5: Act of Grace and ex-gratia payments made by government agencies in the last two years 1 Housing Indemnity Insurance rescue package arising from collapse of HIH Insurance Group.
Source: OAG
Among the most costly types of payment were for death of an officer in the line of duty (refer
Table 5). Seven of these types of payments were made, five by the Police Service and two by
the Fire and Emergency Service. Audit noted that both agencies made procedural changes as
a consequence of the tragedies.
The most common types of AoG and ex gratia payments were for damage or loss of personal
property. Nine agencies made 453 of these types of payments. The Water Corporation made
approximately 90 per cent of these for reasons such as damage from burst water mains,
damage due to dirty water and sewerage over flow. Reasons for payments by other agencies
included:
flood victim compensation to government employees working in the north of the State
damages to jewellery and clothing of government employees. Some payments were for as
little as $30 but still required ministerial approval in accordance with Treasurer’s
Instruction 319.
The next most common type of payment was for departmental error. Often, the error was
provision of incorrect information to the public with the consequent need to compensate for
costs incurred.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 17
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 4: ACT OF GRACE, EX GRATIA AND LIKE PAYMENTS MADE BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (continued)
Audit generally found appropriate justification and authority to make the payments.
Exceptions were:
The Police Service made $117 000 in ex-gratia payments ($46 695 in the period under
review) for legal costs and damages relating to two police officers found by the District
Court and the Full Court Appeal to have maliciously charged and falsely imprisoned a
colleague. The payments arose from an undertaking given by the Police Service, and with
the knowledge of Government, to fully support the defendants against the action.
However, the support provided was inconsistent with government guidelines for providing
of legal support to police officers as:
some payments were made in the course of the litigation rather than once the action
was finalised
the guidelines do not provide for payment of damages when an officer is found to have
acted maliciously
support continued to the Full Court Appeal.
Subsequent legal advice to the Government was that the State had little prospect of
recovering the money already paid and in fact, was obliged to honour the commitment to
fully support the officers. The Police Service has since revised its procedures for
administering the government guidelines.
Ministerial approval for AoG payments was not obtained by the Department of Justice for
20 payments totalling $3 617, the Department of Agriculture for 12 payments totalling
$4 800 and the Department of Land Administration for one payment totalling $1 400. All
three agencies are amending their procedures to ensure future compliance.
Curtin University made five payments totalling $44 906 without ministerial approval.
Various senior managers authorised the different payments. Curtin has advised that
payment guidelines will be established but that under the Curtin University of Technology
Act 1966, ministerial approval is not required. However, Crown Solicitor’s Office advice is
that ministerial approval is required.
18 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Part 5: Corporate Governance
Remuneration Disclosure Requirements Ministerial Portfolios Reports for the last three years have recommended that the legislation
of public sector corporations be updated to provide for disclosure of additional management
information similar to provisions of the Corporations Act 2001. Action to implement the
remaining recommendations was taken during 2002-03.
On May 24, 2002 and November 1, 2002, regulations were gazetted requiring the Water
Corporation and Western Power, respectively, to disclose in their annual reports the
remuneration of each director and their five highest paid officers.
Regulations gazetted on March 4, 2003 now require the port authorities to disclose similar
information. However, the port authorities, except Fremantle Port Authority (FPA), are
required to disclose the remuneration of the three highest paid officers. FPA reports on the
five highest paid officers.
Statement of Corporate Intent – Corporatised Entities At the core of the accountability requirements for corporatised entities is the need to prepare,
each year, a strategic development plan and a statement of corporate intent (SCI). This SCI is
a contractual agreement between each corporation and the Government, and facilitates an
evaluation of the corporation’s performance each year.
In 2002-03 and 2003-04, Western Power and the Water Corporation submitted their annual
SCI to their Ministers for review by March 31, as required. After receiving the Treasurer’s
concurrence, the 2002-03 SCIs were tabled by the responsible Ministers on June 27, 2002 and
September 19, 2002 respectively. Western Power’s 2003-04 SCI was tabled on November 19,
2003. However, the Water Corporation’s SCI was still to be tabled at November 21, 2003.
For 2002-03 and 2003-04 the eight port authorities submitted their SCI to the Minister by
March 31, as required. The 2002-03 SCIs for Esperance and Port Hedland port authorities
were tabled on November 26, 2002, Fremantle Port Authority on December 3, 2002 and the
remaining five on April 1, 2003. This is a considerable improvement on 2001-02 where the
year had ended before the SCIs were tabled. However, the 2003-04 SCIs had not been tabled
at November 21, 2003.
Until tabling of the new SCI, the draft SCI is the current contractual agreement between the
corporation and the Government. Although this situation is provided for in the legislation,
prudent practice would suggest SCIs submitted on time by each corporatised entity should be
reviewed and tabled in Parliament prior to commencement of the financial year to which it
relates. This would provide Parliament with the opportunity to consider each entity’s SCI and
deliberate on the contents in a timely manner.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 19
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Part 6: Accounting Issues
Only one new Accounting Standard (AASB 1044 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets) took effect in 2002-03. However, modifications to existing Standards
(AASB 1012 Foreign Currency Translation and AASB 1028 Employee Benefits) and minor
changes to Treasurer’s Instructions were made. The adoption of these revised requirements
was generally properly handled.
There have, however, been continuing issues with the application of the asset revaluation
Standard (AASB 1041 Revaluation of Non-Current Assets reissued July 2001) due to its
complexity and ongoing transitional arrangements.
The application of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Australia is a major
event and will provide significant challenges for agencies. Agencies need to plan now for this
change, which will require significant effort and management.
Asset Valuations Agencies have generally complied with the transitional provisions of Accounting Standard
AASB 1041, and are working towards full compliance for all non-current assets within the
required timeframes.
This Standard gave entities the option to revert to the cost basis or to continue on a valuation
basis. Transitional provisions of the Standard allow public sector agencies to progressively
revalue property, plant and equipment to fair value up to the 2006 reporting date. However,
Treasurer’s Instruction 954 Revaluation of Non-Current Physical Assets reissued on April 30,
2003, mandates the fair value option for the measurement of land and buildings by
government departments and statutory authorities from July 1, 2004. This requirement
means that those agencies which currently measure land and buildings on the cost basis will
need to commission valuations of these classes of assets on a fair value basis by the 2005
reporting date.
For other classes of non-current assets, agencies have until the 2006 reporting date to
progressively move to the fair value basis.
International Financial Reporting Standards International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are set to apply in Australia from
January 1, 2005. This means that agencies with a December 31 reporting date (primarily
TAFE colleges and universities) should apply IFRS to the reporting period ending
December 31, 2005 whilst for June 30 reporting dates the new standards apply to the
reporting period June 30, 2006.
20 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The International Accounting Standards Board has issued a new standard entitled IFRS 1
First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards. It is expected that the
Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) will in the near future issue an equivalent
Australian Standard.
This new standard will provide the basis and rules for the adoption of IFRS’s. One major
requirement is that the first set of financial statements prepared under IFRS must have
comparative information using IFRS. This means that agencies with a December reporting
date need to have systems and procedures in place to record transactions using IFRS, as well
as existing Australian Accounting Standards from January 1, 2004. Similarly agencies with a
June reporting date should do the same from July 1, 2004.
Recognising the major significance, Audit has provided agencies with a IFRS checklist to assist
them in preparing for the introduction of IFRS. The checklist has also been placed on the OAG
website. In addition the Department of Treasury and Finance has a project team identifying
and analysing the impact on financial reporting for public sector entities.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 21
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Part 7: Summary of Audit Results
Four qualified opinions on controls, compliance with relevant laws or financial
statements were issued, compared with 16 in the 2002 audit cycle.
Six qualified opinions on performance indicators were issued, the same number for the
2002 audit cycle.
Audit opinions on 178 financial statement and 133 performance indicator audits had been
issued at November 25, 2003 as part of the 2003 audit cycle. However, the audits of ten
statutory authorities, one cemetery board and two request audits were not finalised. In
addition, one subsidiary entity, two cemetery boards and three request audits have yet to
submit financial statements for audit. (Upper Preston Lowden Cemetery Board and Beverley
Frail Aged Lodge Inc also remain outstanding from 2001 and 2002.)
Audit Qualifications – Financial Statements and Controls Four agencies received qualified opinions on their controls, compliance with relevant laws or
financial statements. This represents a decrease on the 16 qualified opinions issued in the
2002 audit cycle. Prior to forming a qualified opinion, agency management is consulted.
Details of the qualified opinions issued and related comments are set out in Table 6.
Agency
Department of
Details of Qualification
Controls: The Department collected and retained $1.5 million in fees from
contracts. Legal advice indicates that the Department did not have authority to charge or retain the fees which were used to partially offset the cost of managing the common use contracts.
The Industry and Technology Development Act 1998 (ITD Act) created an Account to be used, as specified, for the purposes of that Act. When the Department merged its two financial systems in March 2002 it began processing all moneys through its operating account and stopped using the specified Account for ITD Act moneys. This contravened the ITD Act.
Comments
The Department was addressing this issue prior to being abolished on
responsible for the ITD Act
were utilising the specified Account for transactions for the remainder of the reporting period.
Industry and Technology suppliers under government common use
February 2, 2003.
The Department of Industry and Resources became
from February 2, 2003 and
continued page 23
22 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
continued from page 22
Agency Details of Qualification Comments
Government Employees Superannuation Board
Controls: The Board could not reconcile its bank account to the general ledger during the year as there were a significant number of unexplained reconciling items.
Last year’s qualification in respect to the payment of Gold State Superannuation equivalent payments into the Government Employees Superannuation Fund has been continued for the current year as the matter was not appropriately resolved until March 4, 2003.
An effective reconciliation at June 30, 2003 was achieved, subsequent to year end.
On March 4, 2003 the previous funding arrangements ceased and appropriate alternative arrangements were put in place to satisfactorily resolve this issue.
Minister for Health in his capacity as the Deemed Board of Metropolitan Public Hospitals
Controls: The Health Service did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that all postal remittances relating to Special Purpose Accounts were brought to account. In addition incurring and certifying officers were not performing all duties required by the Treasurer’s Instructions.
New procedures to address these control weaknesses, implemented after June 30, 2003, will be subject to audit review in the 2003-04 financial period.
Rottnest Island Authority
Controls and financial statements: The Authority relied on information provided
The Authority has made a concerted effort to resolve this
by third parties to determine the landing matter, including regulatory fee revenue due to the Authority. The amendments allowing access Authority did not have controls in place to the third parties’ records. to verify the accuracy or completeness of The new procedures, the information provided. Consequently implemented after June 30, an opinion could not be formed on 2003, will be subject to audit whether $3.29 million included as review in the 2003-04 Admission Fees in Revenue from Goods financial period. and Services was fairly presented.
Table 6: Qualified financial statement and control audit opinions and comments Source: OAG
Section 93(1)(a)-(c) of the FAAA requires an opinion on whether:
the financial statements are based on proper accounts and records
the financial statements fairly present the transactions for the period and the financial
position at the end of the period
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 23
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 7: SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS (continued)
the controls exercised by the agency “are sufficiently adequate to provide reasonable
assurance that the receipt, expenditure and investment of moneys and the acquisition and
disposal of public property and other property and incurring of liabilities have been in
accordance with legislative provisions”.
Audit opinions on agency financial statements and controls allow Parliament and other users
to place more reliance than would otherwise be possible on this information.
Qualified audit opinions are issued where financial statements do not fairly present, or where
controls within the agency were not operating effectively during the review period. This
generally occurs when:
agency has not complied with provisions of the FAAA, Treasurer’s Instructions or other
relevant laws
departure from accounting standards or other mandatory reporting requirements.
Agency management is responsible for keeping proper accounts and maintaining adequate
systems of internal control, preparing and presenting financial statements and performance
indicators and complying with FAAA and other relevant laws. Primary responsibility for the
detection, investigation and prevention of irregularities rests with agency management.
In forming an opinion, audit work involves judgement and most audit evidence is persuasive
rather than conclusive. Limitations in any audit include the use of sample testing, the
effectiveness of internal control structures and the possibility of collusion. As a result, audits
are not an absolute guarantee of the veracity or reliability of agency information and not all
matters of significance may be identified.
Audit Qualifications – Performance Indicators Performance indicators of 133 agencies were audited by November 25, 2003 and six received
qualified opinions. This represents a similar result to the six qualified opinions issued during
the 2002 audit cycle. Prior to forming a qualified opinion, agency management is advised of
Audit concerns and matters may be resolved to avoid a qualification. Details of the qualified
opinions issued and related comments are set out in Table 7.
Eleven agencies did not submit performance indicators as required by the FAAA, representing
an increase on 2001-02 when ten agencies did not submit performance indicators. In
2002-03 the 11 agencies not submitting were:
three that were abolished and only operated for part of the year: Commissioner of
Workplace Agreements, Department of Industry and Technology and Department of
Training
24 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
three that did not submit for 2002-03 following announcement of intention to abolish:
Agricultural Practices Board of Western Australia, Landcare Trust and Perth International
Centre for Application of Solar Energy
five that continue to not submit performance indicators: Aboriginal Affairs Planning
Authority, Administrations of the Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council and Joint House
Committee and Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corruption Or Criminal
Conduct By Western Australian Police Officers.
Agency Details of Qualification Comments
Department of Health The reported key effectiveness indicators for Outcome 3 did not measure achievement of “Improvement in the quality of life of people with chronic illness or disability”.
In addition, the reported key efficiency indicators did not include approximately $185 million of the Department’s $563 million total expenditure for the year and were unable to be verified due to inadequate supporting documentation.
The Department is currently reviewing all performance indicators in order to address these issues.
Department of Land Administration
The Department was unable to collect performance data for its new effectiveness
The new effectiveness indicator was not
performance indicator for the outcome implemented in time to “Access to high quality spatial information is collect data for 2002-03. facilitated and coordinated by the Western However, the Department Australian Land Information System will be collecting baseline (WALIS) Office for the benefit of Western data during 2003-04. Australians”.
Eastern Goldfields The Board has not reported effectiveness The Board’s operations are Transport Board measures as it has been unable to accurately
measure the number and distribution of deficit funded and the Board considers any consultancy
people needful of public transport in the costs for the necessary area of its operations. research and surveys would
not be warranted.
Minister for Health in The key effectiveness indicators presented The agencies are currently his capacity as the by the three agencies for Outcome 3 were reviewing their performance Deemed Board of not key measures of “Improvement in the indicators to address this Metropolitan Public quality of life of people with chronic illness issue. Hospitals or disability”.
Peel Health Services
South West Health Board
Table 7: Qualified performance indicator audit opinions and comments
Source: OAG
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 25
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 7: SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS (continued)
Section 93(1)(d) of the FAAA requires an opinion on whether the reported performance
indicators “are relevant and appropriate having regard to their purpose and fairly represent
indicated performance”.
Qualified audit opinions are issued where the performance indicators are not relevant and
appropriate having regard to their purpose or do not fairly represent indicated performance.
Output Based Management (OBM) Structures and Government Desired Outcomes have
resulted in some agencies’ outcomes being at too high a level. In consequence, there is a need
to revisit outcomes and balance the input and output information required to develop
performance indicators with a better agency focus. Agencies need to assess the measurability
of their outcomes, level at which the outcomes and outputs are pitched, whether the
outcomes complement the Government Desired Outcomes and the usefulness of their Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) to potential users.
A review of OBM is currently being undertaken by the Department of Treasury and Finance
including increased emphasis on outcomes and the need for agencies to develop relevant and
useful KPIs. As part of this review, the Department is currently revising Treasurer’s
Instruction (TI) 904 to address the following issues:
increased focus on outcomes, including where agencies share outcomes
removal of reference to output measures (given the proposal to drop output measures
from the budget statements)
scope to broaden the definition of outputs for efficiency indicators
value in focusing on key performance indicators
definition of efficiency
criteria for assessing the relevance/usefulness of KPIs
legal status of resource agreements.
When agencies comply with the revised TI or as a result of any changes to their outcomes,
their KPIs should be reviewed. Any changes to their KPIs should include ensuring that there
is comparability with earlier reported KPIs.
A case in point is the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. The Department’s outcome
statement was revised in 2002-03 although the Department’s operations had not changed
significantly. The Department, however, continued to report the same effectiveness indicators
and measures pending finalisation of a review of its outcome and performance indicators for
2003-04 reporting purposes.
26 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Ministerial Portfolio Summary of Audit Opinions Issued The audit opinion, issued to the responsible Minister for each government agency, is tabled in
Parliament by the Minister and printed in full in the agency’s annual report and on their
website.
Results of annual audits of government agencies and other entities are shown in the following
table under one of two categories:
The Legislature This category includes the results of the three parliamentary departments.
Ministerial Portfolios The Government of the day assigns responsibility for the control of government agencies to
individual Ministers and the results of audits conducted under the FAAA are reported on this
basis.
The results of other audits involving financial statements only are also reported under this
category with:
subsidiary bodies, conducted under the Corporations Act 2001, with the related agency
boards under the Cemeteries Act are reported to the Minister for Local Government
request audits under section 78 of the FAAA are reported to the Treasurer.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 27
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 7: SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS (continued)
Key to Table of Audit Opinions
The table lists each agency audited and whether the opinion was qualified or unqualified for
both its controls and financial statements and performance indicators and the date the
opinion was issued.
Unless otherwise noted, audit opinions relate to the reporting period July 1, 2002 to June 30,
2003. Performance indicators are only required for agencies reporting under the FAAA. These
opinions are issued on the same date as the financial statement audit opinions.
Agencies’ names are listed alphabetically without ‘The’ in their statutory titles.
The following symbols are used in the Ministerial Portfolio table:
unqualified opinion
N/A opinion is not applicable as performance indicators are not required to be submitted
* extension of time was granted by Minister for submission of financial statements and performance indicators and the extended timeframe was met
# late submission of certified financial statements and performance indicators
Table 8: Symbols in ministerial portfolio table
The details of each qualification are shown earlier in this report at Table 6 (for financial
statements and controls) and Table 7 (for performance indicators).
28 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Audit Opinions Financial Statements Date Opinion Indicators Issued
Performance and Controls
The Legislature
Parliamentary Departments Administration of the Legislative Assembly
Administration of the Legislative Council
Administration of the Joint House Committee
Ministerial Portfolios
Not Submitted 17/10/2003
Not Submitted 17/10/2003
Not Submitted 17/10/2003
Premier; Minister for Public Sector Management; Federal Affairs; Science; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests Anti-Corruption Commission
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Governor’s Establishment
Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations
Royal Commission into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt Or Criminal Conduct By Western Australian Police Officers
Deputy Premier;Treasurer; ANZAC Day Trust (01/01/02 – 31/12/02)
Department of Treasury and Finance
Office of Energy
Perth International Centre for Application of Solar Energy
Treasurer’s Annual Statements
Minister for Energy
Western Australian Gas Disputes Arbitrator
Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator
Western Australian Treasury Corporation
Western Power Corporation Subsidiary: Wind Energy Corporation Pty Ltd
Not Submitted
Not Submitted
N/A
N/A N/A
28/10/2003
15/10/2003
19/09/2003
30/09/2003
20/10/2003
29/08/2003
27/03/2003
15/10/2003
15/10/2003
21/11/2003
31/10/2003
31/10/2003
31/10/2003
29/08/2003
29/07/2003 11/09/2003
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 29
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 7: SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS (continued)
Audit Opinions Financial Statements Date Opinion Indicators Issued
Performance and Controls
Deputy Premier;Treasurer; Minister for Energy (continued)
Request Audits
Aberdeen Unit Trust N/A 30/09/2003
Beverley Frail Aged Lodge (Inc) Not Submitted (3 years ending 30/06/01, 30/06/02 and 30/06/03)
Consolidated Financial Statements for the State Audit in Progress of Western Australia
Curtin University of Technology Superannuation Scheme 1968-1993 (01/07/01 - 30/06/02) N/A 31/01/2003
(01/07/02 - 30/06/03) N/A 28/10/2003
Director of Legal Aid and Others in Trust N/A 31/07/2003
Foundation for Advanced Medical Research Inc Not Submitted
Friends of the KEMH Inc Not Submitted
Ngala Inc N/A 17/09/2003
SB Investment Trust N/A 21/10/2003
South West Cogeneration Joint Venture Audit in Progress
Swan Bells Foundation Incorporated N/A 19/11/2003
Tertiary Institutions Service Centre (Inc) N/A 16/09/2003
Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; the Mid-West,Wheatbelt and Great Southern Agricultural Practices Board of Western Australia Not Submitted 05/11/2003
Agriculture Produce Commission 31/10/2003
Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia 31/10/2003
Department of Agriculture 30/09/2003
Department of Fisheries 26/09/2003
Forest Products Commission 31/10/2003
Great Southern Development Commission 10/10/2003
Landcare Trust Not Submitted 05/11/2003
Mid-West Development Commission 12/11/2003
Perth Market Authority 07/11/2003
Potato Growing Industry Trust Fund Advisory 05/11/2003 Committee
Potato Marketing Corporation of Western Australia# Audit in Progress Subsidiary: Fresh Western Pty Ltd Not Submitted
Poultry Industry Trust Fund Committee 05/11/2003 (01/08/02 – 31/07/03)
Rural Business Development Corporation Audit in Progress
Western Australian Egg Marketing Board* 06/11/2003
Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Audit in Progress
Wheatbelt Development Commission 31/10/2003
30 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Audit Opinions Financial Statements Date Opinion Indicators Issued
Performance and Controls
Minister for Local Government and Regional Development; Heritage; the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne; Goldfields-Esperance Department of Local Government and Regional
Development* 26/09/2003
Fremantle Cemetery Board (Final Audit) 04/11/2003
Gascoyne Development Commission 14/11/2003
Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission 10/10/2003
Heritage Council of Western Australia 12/11/2003
Kimberley Development Commission 10/10/2003
Metropolitan Cemeteries Board 27/08/2003
National Trust of Australia (WA) 19/11/2003
Pilbara Development Commission 31/10/2003
Cemeteries Act Audits
The following cemetery boards audited under the Cemeteries Act do not have a statutory date for submitting financial statements.
Details of Cemetery Board audits completed are:
Albany Cemetery Board N/A 30/10/2003
Bunbury Cemetery Board N/A 12/11/2003
Chowerup Cemetery Board Not Submitted
Dwellingup Cemetery Board N/A 29/10/2003
Geraldton Cemetery Board N/A 25/11/2003
Kalgoorlie-Boulder Cemetery Board Audit in Progress
Nabawa Cemetery Board N/A 25/11/2003 (Final Audit: 01/07/02 - 31/08/03)
South Caroling Cemetery Board N/A 07/11/2003
Upper Preston-Lowden Cemetery Board Not Submitted (3 years ending 30/06/01, 30/06/02 and 30/06/03)
Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection; Indigenous Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Public Sector Management Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Not Submitted 21/10/2003
Building and Construction Industry Training Board 31/10/2003
Commissioner of Workplace Agreements Not Submitted 05/03/2003 (Final Audit: 01/07/02 – 15/09/02)
Construction Industry Long Service Leave 07/11/2003 Payments Board
Department of Consumer and Employment Protection 10/10/2003
Department of Indigenous Affairs* 17/10/2003
Department of the Registrar, Western Australian 09/09/2003 Industrial Relations Commission
Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board 04/11/2003
Settlement Agents Supervisory Board 04/11/2003
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Commission 27/08/2003
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 31
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 7: SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS (continued)
Audit Opinions Financial Statements Date Opinion Indicators Issued
Performance and Controls
Attorney General; Minister for Health; Electoral Affairs Animal Resources Authority Audit in Progress
Commissioner for Equal Opportunity 22/09/2003
Department of Health Qualification 10/10/2003
Department of Justice 10/10/2003
Hawthorn Hospital 20/11/2003
Law Reform Commission of Western Australia 14/10/2003
Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia 28/08/2003
Legal Contribution Trust (01/01/03 – 30/06/03) 05/11/2003
Legal Contribution Trust (01/07/02 – 31/12/02) 17/04/2003
Legal Costs Committee 24/10/2003
Local Health Authorities Analytical Committee* Audit in Progress
Minister for Health in his capacity as the Deemed Qualification Qualification 19/11/2003 Board of Metropolitan Public Hospitals
Office of Health Review Audit in Progress
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 24/09/2003
Office of the Information Commissioner 19/09/2003
Peel Health Services Qualification 20/11/2003
Professional Standards Council (01/01/02 – 31/12/02)# 18/07/2003
Quadriplegic Centre Board 19/11/2003
Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Trust 25/11/2003
South West Health Board Qualification 20/11/2003
WA Country Health Service Audit in Progress
Western Australian Alcohol and Drug Authority 07/11/2003
Western Australian Centre for Pathology and Audit in Progress Medical Research
Western Australian Electoral Commission 23/09/2003
Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation 22/10/2003
Minister for the Environment Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority* Audit in Progress
Bunbury Water Board 14/11/2003
Busselton Water Board 19/11/2003
Department of Conservation and Land Management 15/09/2003
Department of Environmental Protection 14/10/2003
Keep Australia Beautiful Council (WA) 26/09/2003
Office of Water Regulation 08/09/2003
Swan River Trust* 12/11/2003
Water and Rivers Commission 14/11/2003
Zoological Parks Authority 30/09/2003
32 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Audit Opinions Financial Statements Date Opinion Indicators Issued
Performance and Controls
Minister for Police and Emergency Services; Justice; Community Safety Fire and Emergency Services Authority of 30/09/2003
Western Australia
Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services 08/08/2003
Police Service 10/10/2003
Public Trustee 30/09/2003
Western Australian Fire Brigades 31/10/2003 Superannuation Board
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Albany Port Authority
Armadale Redevelopment Authority
Broome Port Authority
Bunbury Port Authority
Commissioner of Main Roads Subsidiary: Tarolinta Pty Ltd
Dampier Port Authority
Department for Planning and Infrastructure
East Perth Redevelopment Authority
Eastern Goldfields Transport Board#
Esperance Port Authority
Fremantle Port Authority
Geraldton Port Authority
Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust (Final Audit)
Midland Redevelopment Authority
Port Hedland Port Authority
Subiaco Redevelopment Authority
Western Australian Coastal Shipping Commission
Western Australian Government Railways Commission (Final Audit)
Western Australian Independent Rail Access Regulator
Western Australian Land Authority
Western Australian Planning Commission
N/A 30/09/2003
14/11/2003
N/A 26/09/2003
N/A 12/09/2003
30/09/2003 N/A 30/09/2003
N/A 30/09/2003
15/10/2003
03/11/2003
Qualification 20/11/2003
N/A 26/09/2003
N/A 29/08/2003
N/A 26/09/2003
31/10/2003
14/11/2003
N/A 30/09/2003
03/11/2003
14/11/2003
30/09/2003
31/10/2003
30/09/2003
31/10/2003
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 33
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
PART 7: SUMMARY OF AUDIT RESULTS (continued)
Audit Opinions Financial Statements Date Opinion Indicators Issued
Performance and Controls
Minister for State Development Coal Industry Superannuation Board 24/10/2003
Coal Miners’ Welfare Board of Western Australia 12/11/2003
Department of Industry and Resources* 29/10/2003
Department of Industry and Technology Qualification Not Submitted 30/09/2003 (Final Audit: 01/07/02 - 02/02/03)
Minerals and Energy Research Institute of 18/11/2003 Western Australia
Minister for Education and Training Country High School Hostels Authority 17/11/2003
Curriculum Council# 13/10/2003
Department of Education and Training* 14/11/2003
Department of Education Services 30/09/2003
Department of Training Not Submitted 26/06/2003 (Final Audit: 01/07/02 - 02/02/03)
Trustees of the Public Education Endowment 22/09/2003
Minister for Community Development;Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth; Disability Services; Culture and the Arts Board of the Art Gallery of Western Australia
Department for Community Development
Department of Culture and the Arts
Disability Services Commission
Library Board of Western Australia
Perth Theatre Trust
Screen West (Inc)
Western Australian Museum
30/09/2003
15/10/2003
17/09/2003
27/08/2003
14/11/2003
14/11/2003
14/11/2003
12/11/2003
34 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Audit Opinions Financial Statements Date Opinion Indicators Issued
Performance and Controls
Minister for Tourism; Small Business; Sport and Recreation; Peel and the South West Department of Sport and Recreation 14/10/2003
Peel Development Commission 06/11/2003
Recreation Camps and Reserve Board 28/10/2003
Rottnest Island Authority Qualification 31/10/2003
Small Business Development Corporation 12/11/2003
South West Development Commission 25/09/2003
Western Australian Boxing Commission 28/10/2003
Western Australian Institute of Sport* 14/11/2003
Western Australian Sports Centre Trust 14/11/2003
Western Australian Tourism Commission 19/11/2003
Minister for Housing and Works; Racing and Gaming; Government Enterprises; Land Information Betting Control Board (01/08/02 - 31/07/03) 17/10/2003
Burswood Park Board 11/11/2003
Country Housing Authority 29/08/2003
Department of Housing and Works 25/09/2003
Department of Land Administration Qualification 15/10/2003
Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor 15/09/2003
Gaming Commission of Western Australia 04/11/2003
Gold Corporation 21/11/2003
Government Employees’ Housing Authority# 18/09/2003
Government Employees Superannuation Board Qualification 21/10/2003
Insurance Commission of Western Australia 27/08/2003
Lotteries Commission 28/08/2003
Racecourse Development Trust (01/08/02 - 31/07/03) 12/11/2003
Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal of Western Australia 17/10/2003 (01/08/02 - 31/07/03)
State Government Insurance Corporation 27/08/2003
State Housing Commission 29/08/2003 Subsidiaries: Homeswest Loan Scheme Trust N/A 29/08/2003
Keystart Bonds Limited N/A 29/08/2003 Keystart Housing Scheme Trust N/A 29/08/2003 Keystart Loans Limited N/A 29/08/2003 Keystart Support (Subsidiary) Pty Ltd N/A 29/08/2003 Keystart Support Pty Ltd N/A 29/08/2003 Keystart Support Trust N/A 29/08/2003
State Supply Commission* Audit in Progress
Totalisator Agency Board (01/08/02 - 31/07/03) 26/09/2003
Water Corporation N/A 28/08/2003
Western Australian Building Management Authority 25/09/2003
Western Australian Greyhound Racing 31/10/2003 Authority (01/08/02 – 31/07/03)
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 35
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Appendix 1
Audit Opinion Template
INDEPENDENT AUDIT OPINION
To the Parliament of Western Australia
{ENTITY NAME}
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE {PERIOD} ENDED {DATE}
Audit Opinion
In my opinion,
(i) the controls exercised by the {Entity Name} provide reasonable assurance that the receipt and expenditure
of moneys, the acquisition and disposal of property, and the incurring of liabilities have been in accordance
with legislative provisions; and
(ii) the financial statements are based on proper accounts and present fairly in accordance with applicable
Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements in Australia and the
Treasurer’s Instructions, the financial position of the {Entity} at {Date} and its financial performance and
cash flows for the {Period} ended on that date.
Scope
The Accountable Officer’s Role
The Accountable Officer is responsible for keeping proper accounts and maintaining adequate systems of internal
control, preparing the financial statements, and complying with the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985
(the Act) and other relevant written law.
The financial statements consist of the Statement of Financial Performance, Statement of Financial Position,
Statement of Cash Flows, Output Schedule of Expenses and Revenues, Summary of Consolidated Fund
Appropriations and Revenue Estimates, and the Notes to the Financial Statements.
Summary of My Role
As required by the Act, I have independently audited the accounts and financial statements to express an opinion
on the controls and financial statements. This was done by looking at a sample of the evidence.
An audit does not guarantee that every amount and disclosure in the financial statements is error free. The term
‘reasonable assurance’ recognises that an audit does not examine all evidence and every transaction. However,
my audit procedures should identify errors or omissions significant enough to adversely affect the decisions of
users of the financial statements.
AUDITOR GENERAL
Month , xxxx
36 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
INDEPENDENT AUDIT OPINION
To the Parliament of Western Australia
{ENTITY NAME}
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE {PERIOD} ENDED {DATE}
Audit Opinion
In my opinion, the key effectiveness and efficiency performance indicators of the {Entity Name} are relevant and
appropriate to help users assess the {Entity}’s performance and fairly represent the indicated performance for the
{Period} ended {Date}.
Scope
The Accountable Officer’s Role
The Accountable Officer is responsible for developing and maintaining proper records and systems for preparing
performance indicators.
The performance indicators consist of key indicators of effectiveness and efficiency.
Summary of My Role
As required by the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985, I have independently audited the performance
indicators to express an opinion on them. This was done by looking at a sample of the evidence.
An audit does not guarantee that every amount and disclosure in the performance indicators is error free, nor
does it examine all evidence and every transaction. However, my audit procedures should identify errors or
omissions significant enough to adversely affect the decisions of users of the performance indicators.
AUDITOR GENERAL
Month , xxxx
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 37
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
Appendix 2
Audit Practice Statement
Introduction Practice Statements are issued in accordance with Section 95(1)(b) of the Financial
Administration Audit Act 1985 (FAAA). This Section of the Act requires the Auditor General
to inform Parliament of any major change in the extent or character of his audits. This
Statement replaces two previous major statements released in May 1996 (Public Sector Attest
Audit Practice Statement) and November 1997 (Examining and Auditing Public Sector
Performance), as well as the periodic updates released since then.
This new Statement offers an updated, concise, and consolidated plain English summary of:
why we audit
what we audit
how we audit.
To support the release of this new Practice Statement the Office of the Auditor General’s
website has also been enhanced to provide more information on our audit practices
(http://www.audit.wa.gov.au).
Why We Audit? In the Westminster system of government, all authority for government activity ultimately
stems from Parliament. Public sector agencies are therefore accountable to Parliament for
their use of public resources and the powers conferred on them by Parliament.
To assist it to oversee the public sector, Parliament seeks independent assurance that
agencies are operating, and accounting for their performance, in accordance with
Parliament’s purpose. This is the Auditor General’s role, whose office and functions are
established by means of the FAAA.
Adverse comments, recommendations, or audit qualifications by the Auditor General alert
Parliament, and thus the public, to matters of concern. Positive reports and opinions, on the
other hand, add credibility to management’s assertions, allowing users to place more reliance
on such information.
Specifically the Auditor General:
audits and provides an opinion to Parliament on each public sector agency’s annual
financial statements and performance indicators
provides an opinion on the adequacy of controls in satisfying legislative provisions
conducts performance examinations
reports to Parliament any significant matters.
38 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
What We Audit? In 2002-03 the Auditor General audited a public sector of some 115 000 employees, with a
combined revenue and expenditure in excess of $28 billion.
Organisations audited by the Auditor General include:
government departments
statutory authorities
controlled entities
State-owned corporations.
For a comprehensive list of audited agencies refer to our Annual Report.
How We Audit?
General Principles To achieve the vision and objectives of the OAG, the Office adheres to the following principles:
all audits are conducted in accordance with professional standards and international best
practice
the highest standards of ethical and personal behaviour are demonstrated
all audits are approached in a fair and constructive way
audits are conducted and reported in an impartial manner.
Types of Audits The Auditor General undertakes two types of audits.
Assurance: audits the ‘assertions’ made by public sector agencies about their financial and
non-financial performance, providing assurance that these statements are ‘true and fair’
Compliance and Performance examinations: investigations of agency operations, including
their efficiency and effectiveness to determine whether funds are spent in accordance with
Parliament’s expectations.
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 39
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
AUDIT PRACTICE STATEMENT (continued)
Common Elements
Limitations
There are limitations to any external audit that users need to be aware of.
Audits are not an absolute guarantee of the truth or reliability of agency information, and
may not have identified all matters of significance. This is because the work undertaken
to form an opinion is permeated by judgement and most audit evidence is persuasive
rather than conclusive. In addition, there are inherent limitations in any audit, including
the use of testing, the effectiveness of internal control structures and the possibility of
collusion.
Primary responsibility for the detection, investigation and prevention of irregularities
rests with agency management. Consequently it is an agency’s management who remains
responsible for keeping proper accounts and maintaining adequate systems of internal
control, preparing and presenting the financial statements, complying with the FAAA and
other relevant laws.
While Performance and Compliance Examinations can be a catalyst for positive change,
the Auditor General cannot, and should not, be seen as the implementer of such change.
This remains the responsibility of agency management, and ultimately Parliament.
Audit Evidence
Sufficient evidence is gathered to enable conclusions and recommendations to be made.
Audit staff gather information and evidence from a range of sources including agency records,
data analysis, interviews with relevant staff members and surveys or client questionnaires.
Audit work may also include discussions with special interest groups, gathering and analysing
information from contracted agencies and special studies.
Access to Information
Under the FAAA, audit staff have unrestricted access to information held by agencies,
irrespective of any restrictions on disclosure imposed by other legislation such as secrecy
provisions.
Confidentiality of audit files and working papers is provided by the fact that the Office of the
Auditor General is an ‘exempt agency’ under the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
40 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Communication
Good communication with each agency is a vital part of the audit process.
Entry interviews are held to clarify the examination scope and to agree on communication
protocols.
Significant findings and emerging issues that arise during the examination are progressively
discussed with an agency’s CEO and/or nominated contact officer to ensure that they are kept
fully informed.
Matters of Significance
Under the FAAA the Auditor General is required to report, at least once a year on the results
of audits that “… in his opinion are of such significance as to require reporting …”. The
Auditor General has defined these Matters of Significance as the key messages in OAG reports
and further defined ‘key messages’ as the issues a general parliamentary reader would take
away from the report after the detail of specific findings and recommendations has receded
into the background.
Acting on Recommendations of the Auditor General
The Auditor General has no authority to enforce the adoption of recommendations arising
from an audit. Adoption of the recommendations is a decision for the agencies concerned, or
the prerogative of Parliament and the Executive Government.
The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament reviews the reports of the Auditor General and
may require agencies to advise on action taken in respect of matters raised in reports.
Assurance Audits
Financial and Performance Indicator Audits
The Office undertakes two types of assurance audits: audits of financial statements, and audits
of performance indicators. Together the audits provide independent assurance to Parliament
regarding the financial statements and key performance indicators included an agency’s
Annual Report.
Financial Audits
Financial Audits focus on public sector agency’s annual financial statements. They provide
assurance to Parliament that the information provided is based on proper accounts, and is
presented fairly in accordance with applicable Accounting Standards and other mandatory
professional reporting requirements, including the Treasurer’s Instructions. The Auditor
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 41
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
AUDIT PRACTICE STATEMENT (continued)
General’s opinion will also state whether the controls exercised by the agency provide
reasonable assurance that the receipt, expenditure, and investment of monies, the acquisition
and disposal of property, and the incurring of liabilities have been in accordance with relevant
legislation.
Performance Indicator Audits
The Auditor General’s audit of performance indicators differs from his financial audits in that
the audit opinion not only addresses the traditional area of ‘fair representation’ but also
provides an assessment of whether or not the indicators are relevant and appropriate having
regard to their purpose.
Assurance Audit Resources Assurance Services Division (ASD) staff of the OAG undertake both the Financial and
Performance Indicator audits. Private sector contractors appointed under the FAAA are
contracted by the Division to assist with audit work. At least 20 per cent of field audits are
contracted in this way to cost effectively procure specialist expertise. In addition, this sustains
a level of public sector expertise in the market that can be accessed to cope with peaks in
workload.
The audits of Consolidated Fund dependent agencies are funded from Parliament’s
appropriation and are not paid for by the audited agencies, although the cost is disclosed in
their financial statements. Other agencies are required to pay for their audits.
Methodology The financial attest audit process is risk based and audit software is used during the planning,
analysis and testing, and evaluation phases. The OAG uses an internationally recognised
audit methodology adapted to the public sector environment. The OAG’s Audit
Documentation and Planning Tool (ADAPT) is a dynamic database of tools and techniques that
enable each audit program to be individually tailored to address each agency’s specific risk
profile.
42 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The Assurance Audit Process
Strategic Planning
and management controls through discussion with agency management and previous audits; assessing
audit strategy and audit plan including an estimated cost of the audit.
Occurs prior to commencing the audit and involves discussing the audit strategy with agency management/audit committee. The plan includes the mix of compliance testing and verification procedures developed for the audit and an estimate of cost.
controls assessment results are reported in an interim management letter and discussed with
assess whether additional audit procedures are
Involves audit analysing, verifying and assessing financial statement balances for compliance with legislation and accounting standards; verifying and
appropriateness; reporting findings in a final management letter and discussions with
Involves: presenting the audit opinion to the Minister
report and advising the Minister of any significant
identified during these audits are tabled in
management is given the opportunity to consider the
inclusion in these reports so that natural justice is
a briefing shortly after the tabling.
and Commencement
Management Letter and
T
T
T
T
T
Involves identifying organisational risks, governance
internal controls and information systems based on knowledge of agency’s operations; and develop an
To keep agency management informed internal
agency management/audit committee. Audit also
required to form an opinion.
assessing performance indicators for relevance and
management/audit committee at the exit interview.
Audit Opinion and Report to Minister
for tabling in Parliament in the agency’s annual
issues discussed with the agency at the exit interview.
Reports on the attest audit results and issues
Parliament in December and June each year. Agency
accuracy and fairness of any article drafted for
preserved. Ministers are briefed prior to the report tabling and Members of Parliament are provided with
Entrance Interview
Interim Management Findings
Final Audit Procedures,
Exit Interview
Report to Parliament
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 43
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
AUDIT PRACTICE STATEMENT (continued)
Compliance and Performance Examinations
Examinations The Office undertakes two types of performance examinations – Compliance and
Performance. They provide independent assurance to Parliament and the community that
funds appropriated for particular activities are spent wisely and in accordance with
Parliament’s expectations. They reinforce the accountability of Ministers and public sector
managers for their performance, as well as recognising and advising Parliament of
management initiatives and achievements. The examinations are undertaken in accordance
with section 80 (b) of the FAAA.
Compliance and Performance examinations reinforce the accountability of Ministers and
public sector managers for their performance, as well as recognising and advising Parliament
of management initiatives and achievements.
Compliance Examinations
Compliance examinations provide assessment of the internal controls and legislative
compliance of an agency. They generally involve assessing:
the adequacy of internal controls and the functionality of computerised information
systems
compliance with legislation, public sector policies, an agencies own internal policies and
accepted good practice
instances of inefficiency, waste or extravagance.
Performance Examinations
Performance examinations evaluate whether an agency is effectively meeting its objectives
and using its resources economically and efficiently. They can cover all or part of the activities
of an agency or agencies. The examinations seek to improve resource management and add
value to an agency through recommendations on improving operations and procedures.
Resourcing Compliance and Performance Examinations Two separate Divisions of the OAG undertake these examinations, namely the Compliance
and Information Systems Division and the Performance Review Division. Internal staff
principally conduct the examinations, though specialist assistance is obtained on an as
required basis.
44 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Methodology All reviews are conducted using the Office’s own methodology which complies with the FAAA,
and is broadly consistent with the general principles of the Australian Auditing Standards.
The Examination Process
environmental scans. Approved topics are periodically prioritised.
Agency CEO notified that the topic is being researched. Communication protocols are established.
usefulness of proceeding and the scope and
the end of the field-work, review findings,
and discuss with the CEO/senior management.
day of tabling.
Planning Phase
Collate and Analyse
T
T
T
T
T
T
Topic Identification Potential topics are identified through year-round
Notification of Audit/Review
Research the business area, conclude on the
approach of the examination.
Conduct the examination according to the work program. Ensure that the agency is kept informed of preliminary findings.
Atassess significance, determine recommendations
Draft Summary of Findings is provided to agency for confirmation of facts and context.
Report to Parliament The report is tabled in Parliament. Members of Parliament are usually provided a briefing on the
Undertake Field-Work
Draft Summary of Findings
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 45
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
AUDIT PRACTICE STATEMENT (continued)
Following up Examinations Follow-up reviews are generally done on significant compliance and performance
examinations, usually around two to three years after the report is tabled. These follow-ups
aim to provide Parliament with an assessment of changes that have occurred as a result of
the initial examination.
Follow-up reviews are not undertaken when circumstances have changed significantly since
the original report.
Further Information For more information on how we go about conducting our audits, including additional
explanation on some of the items included in this Practice Statement, please refer to
http://www.audit.wa.gov.au.
46 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Previous Reports of the Auditor General
1999 Report on the Western Australian Public Health Sector – Matters of Significance
– Summary of the Results of Agency Audits April 21, 1999
Proposed Sale of the Central Park Office Tower – by the Government Employees Superannuation Board April 21, 1999
Lease now – pay later? – The Leasing of Office and Other Equipment June 30, 1999
Getting Better All The Time – Health Sector Performance Indicators June 30, 1999
Report on the Western Australian Public Tertiary Education Sector – 1998 Annual Reporting Cycle June 30, 1999
Fish for the Future? – Fisheries Management in Western Australia October 13, 1999
Public Sector Performance Report 1999 – Controls, Compliance and Accountability Audits – Follow-up Performance Examinations November 10, 1999
A Stitch in Time – Surgical Services in Western Australia November 24, 1999
Report on Ministerial Portfolios to November 5, 1999 – Issues Arising from Audits – General Control Issues – Summary of the Results of Agency Audits November 24, 1999
2000 Public Sector Performance Report 2000 – Emerging Issues – Management Control Issues April 5, 2000
Report on the Western Australian Public Health Sector and of Other Ministerial Portfolio Agencies for 1999 April 5, 2000
A Means to an End – Contracting Not-For-Profit Organisations for the Delivery of Community Services June 14, 2000
Private Care for Public Patients – A Follow-on Examination of the Joondalup Health Campus Contract June 21, 2000
Report on Western Australian Public Universities and TAFE Colleges – 1999 Annual Reporting Cycle June 21, 2000
Bus Reform: Further down the road – A follow-on examination into competition reform of Transperth bus services June 28, 2000
Surrender Arms? – Firearm Management in Western Australia September 13, 2000
Second Public Sector Performance Report 2000 – Administration of Legislation – Financial and Management Control Issues October 11, 2000
A Tough Assignment – Teacher Placements in Government Schools October 18, 2000
Report on Ministerial Portfolio at December 1, 2000 – Summary of Audit Results – Accountability Issues (Corporate Governance, Accounting for GST Transitional Loan) December 20, 2000
2001 Sale of the Gas Corporation’s Businesses (Special Report) February 14, 2001
On-line and Length? – Provision and Use of Learning Technologies in Government schools May 23, 2001
Implementing and Managing Community Based Sentences May 30, 2001
Public Sector Performance Report, 2001 – Administration of Legislation – – Financial and Management Control Issues – Follow-up Examination June 20, 2001
Report on Public Universities and TAFE Colleges – 2000 annual reporting cycle June 20, 2001
Lifting the Rating: Stroke Management in Western Australia August 22, 2001
Good Housekeeping: Facilities Management of Government Property and Buildings August 29, 2001
Second Public Sector Performance Report 2001 – Management , Compliance and Control Issues – Follow-up Performance Examinations September 19, 2001
Righting the Wrongs: Complaints Management in the Western Australian Public Sector October 17, 2001
AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 47
REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS AT NOVEMBER 25, 2003
2001 (continued) Third Public Sector Performance Report 2001 – Appointment and Use of Contract Staff
– Management of Mobile Phones in Government – Ombudsman’s Statistics and Complaints Automated Register Project – The Perth Convention Centre
Life Matters: Management of Deliberate Self-Harm in Young People
First Byte: Consortium IT Contracting in the Western Australian Public Sector
Report on Ministerial Portfolios at November 30, 2001 – Summary of Audit Results – Accounting and Contemporary Issues – Summary Results of Agency Audits
2002 Level Pegging: Managing Mineral Titles in Western Australia
Report on Public Universities and TAFE Colleges and of other Ministerial Portfolio Agencies for 2001
A Critical Resource: Nursing Shortages and the Use of Agency Nurses
Public Sector Performance Report 2002 – Agency Management of Fringe Benefits Tax – Common Use Contracts in Government – Procurement of Medical Equipment – Follow-up Performance Examination
A Measure of Protection: Management and Effectiveness of Restraining Orders
Grounds for Improvement: Government Owned or Controlled Contaminated Sites
Management of Hospital Special Purpose Accounts
Second Public Sector Performance Report 2002 – Management of Confidential Personal Information in Government Electronic Databases – Management of Intellectual Property by the Department of Agriculture – Performance Examination: Family Centres
Report on Ministerial Portfolios at November 29, 2002
2003 Customer Calling: Call Centres and the Delivery of Customer Benefits
Contracting Not-For-Profit Organisations for Delivery of Health Services
Supplementary Report on Ministerial Portfolio Agency Audits for 2001-02, primarily the Public Health Sector
Public Sector Performance Report – Management of Marine Safety and Seas Search and Rescue – Regulation of the Taxi Industry and Small charter Vehicles – Security of the Government Internet Gateway
Report on Public Universities and TAFE Colleges for 2002
Balancing Act: The Leasing of Government Assets
Second Public Sector Performance Report 2003 – Management of Water Resources in Western Australia – Regulation of Gaming and Wagering in Western Australia – Performance Examination
A Roof Over Our Heads: Maintenance of Public Housing
Turning the Tide: The Business Sustainability of the Rottnest Island Authority
The above reports can be accessed on the
November 7, 2001
November 28, 2001
December 5, 2001
December 19, 2001
June 19, 2002
August 14, 2002
August 14, 2002
September 25, 2002
October 16, 2002
November 13, 2002
November 27, 2002
December 4, 2002
December 11, 2002
April 2, 2003
April 16, 2003
June 11, 2003
June 25, 2003
August 13, 2003
September 17, 2003
September 24, 2003
October 29, 2003
November 26, 2003
Office of the Auditor General’s website at www.audit.wa.gov.au/
On request these reports may be made available in an alternative format for those with visual impairment.
48 AUDITOR GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA