fbpx Responses to Performance Audit Recommendations: Annual Status Update | Victorian Auditor-General's Office

Responses to Performance Audit Recommendations: Annual Status Update

Tabled: 23 June 2021

Snapshot

Do public sector agencies implement our performance audit recommendations and respond to them in a timely way?

Why this review is important

When we audit the performance of public sector agencies, we often identify opportunities for them to improve how they work. We make recommendations to help them address the risks and the root causes of any poor performance.

However, agencies are not legislatively required to accept, complete or publicly report on our recommendations.

As a result, we conduct this annual review to monitor how the agencies we audit address our findings. This report provides for greater transparency and accountability to the Victorian public and parliamentarians about how agencies respond to our audits. 

    Who we examined

    We reviewed:

    • 102 agencies
    • 76 audits
    • 1 063 audit recommendations.  

    What we did

    We performed a limited assurance review under Section 20 of the Audit Act 1994.

    We asked agencies to attest to how they had progressed in responding to our performance audit recommendations.

      What we found

      Most agencies reported that they continue to accept and act on our recommendations. We found that 63 per cent of all recommendations were completed as at 31 March 2021. Further, agencies took a median time of 13 months to complete them.

      However, 72 unresolved recommendations are more than three years old in 27 agencies across 28 audits. It is unclear whether risks relating to these have been mitigated by other means or remain unmanaged.

      Key facts

      Key facts graphic

      Back to top

      Scope of the review

      The Auditor‐General provides independent assurance to the Parliament of Victoria and the Victorian community on the performance of the state and local government public sectors.

      Our performance audits assess whether agencies have effective programs and services and whether they are using their resources economically and efficiently. We also identify activities that work well and reflect better practice.

      Our audit reports contain recommendations for audited agencies to improve key aspects of their operations. We ask agencies to respond to our audit recommendations by stating whether they accept them, what action they will take and how long they anticipate it will take them to complete them. We include their responses in the final report tabled in Parliament.

      We track agency responses to our recommendations through an annual follow-up survey. Since 2020, we have publicly reported on each agency's progress in responding to our recommendations.

      What we looked at

      Between 2015–16 and 2019–20 we tabled 112 performance audits. For this review, we examined agencies' progress on recommendations from 76 of those audits. We looked at: 

      • 41 performance audit reports published in 2018–19 and 2019–20
      • two performance audits that tabled early in 2020–21
      • 33 audits from earlier years that had unresolved recommendations.

      Figure A sets out the audits, agencies and recommendations we reviewed

      Figure A: Audits and recommendations included in the review

        2020–21 2019–20 2018–19 2017–18 2016–17 2015–16 Total
      Audits 2 15 26 17 9 7 76
      Recommendations 19 269 589 117 61 8 1 063
      Agencies*             102

      Note: *Data not shown by year as agencies can be included in multiple audits in multiple years.
      Source: VAGO.

      We asked agencies to complete a survey and provide detailed information about their responses to each audit recommendation, including the level of acceptance, actions taken, current status and the timing of completion. 

      Agencies attested that their survey responses were accurate and complete as of 31 March 2021. This year's survey responses are included in Appendix F.

      For a full list of the audits and agencies included in this review, see Appendix D.

      What we left out and why

      For audits that tabled in 2015–16 to 2017–18, we reviewed only the recommendations that were not complete in our previous survey (conducted November 2019). We did not focus on the completed recommendations from these audits in this review. 

      For a more complete picture of agency performance, refer to the review dashboard on our website (www.audit.vic.gov.au), where we have included each agency's status and response to past recommendations.

      Back to top

      What we found

      We consulted with the audited agencies and considered their views when reaching our conclusions. The agencies’ responses are in Appendix A. 

      When do agencies accept our recommendations?

      We asked the audited agencies to tell us whether they accepted our recommendations both before we tabled their report and at the time we conducted our review. 

      Before tabling

      Of the 1 063 recommendations included in this review, agencies accepted or supported 1 023 (96 per cent) of our recommendations at the time of the audit. There were 16 recommendations that were not accepted. For the remaining 24, agencies either did not respond, or did not clearly indicate whether they suppported a recommendation.

      At the time of review

      We again asked agencies whether they accepted our audit recommendations at the time of this review. This enabled us to gather new data, including from those agencies that did not respond previously. Agencies accepted 1 054 of the 1 063 recommendations (99 per cent) and rejected nine.

      Figures 1A and 1B show acceptance rates at the time of tabling and at the time of review.

      FIGURE 1A: Acceptance of recommendations at time of tabling

        2020–21 2019–20 2018–19 2017–18 2016–17 2015–16
      Accepted 19 261 576 116 43 8
      Not accepted   6 10      
      Did not respond/specify   2 3 1 18  

      Source: VAGO.

      FIGURE 1B: Acceptance of recommendations at time of review

        2020–21 2019–20 2018–19 2017–18 2016–17 2015–16
      Accepted 19 262 587 117 61 8
      Not accepted   7 2      
      Did not respond/specify            

      Source: VAGO.

      Reasons agencies rejected our recommendations

      Agencies that did not accept our recommendations provided clear reasons for doing so. Examples include:

      • existing records did not allow for indirect costs to be allocated to services
      • mandatory training for all staff was not practical within expected timeframes.

      Implementing accepted recommendations

      Agencies attested that they had completed 63 per cent of the 1 054 accepted recommendations. Figure 1C shows accepted recommendations by status. 

      FIGURE 1C: Recommendations by status

       

      FIGURE 1C: Recommendations by status

      Source: VAGO.

      Implementation by year

      Figure 1D shows the status of recommendations by year.

      FIGURE 1D: Recommendation status by year

        2020–21 2019–20 2018–19 2017–18 2016–17* 2015–16*
      Complete 3 173 379 73 38 3
      In progress 16 86 194 44 23 5
      Not started   3 13      

      Note: * Includes only unresolved recommendations at time of the last survey. There was a total 67 accepted recommendations for 2015–16 and 193 accepted recommendations for 2016–17 in the last survey.
      Source: VAGO.

      Status of 2018–19 to 2020–21 accepted recommendations

      Of the audits we tabled over 2018–19 to 2020–21, agencies reported that they had completed 555 (64 per cent) of the 868 accepted recommendations. Actions are underway on another 296 recommendations.

      There had been no action taken on 16 accepted recommendations. Agencies provided us with a number of reasons for this, including that their action depended on the following becoming available:  

      • Royal Commission findings (nine recommendations)
      • best practice guidelines (two recommendations) 
      • Ministerial Advisory Committee findings (two recommendations)
      • evaluation of another in-progress recommendation (one recommendation).
      Status of 2015–16 to 2017–18 audit recommendations 

      Recommendations from older audits are more likely to be complete because the agencies have had more time. Despite this, some recommendations remain unresolved for audits conducted over 2015–16 to 2017–18. There are 72 of the 186 unresolved recommendations (39 per cent) in the review. These recommendations are more than three years old and are directed at 27 different agencies across 28 different audits. 

      We urge these agencies to resolve these recommendations immediately so that the risks we identified are addressed and necessary improvements made.

      How different types of agencies performed 

      We compared the completion status of the different types of agencies included in our review.

      Departmental agencies

      The nine government departments in our review had a greater number of accepted and unresolved recommendations than other types of agencies. This is largely because they are included in more of our audits.

      Specifically, we found that: 

      • The Department of Education and Training (DET) had the highest completion rate, reporting they completed 35 of their 47 surveyed recommendations (74 per cent). 
      • The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) had a relatively high completion rate, reporting they had completed 68 of their 97 surveyed recommendations (70 per cent).
      • The Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR) also had high completion rates, reporting they both completed 46 of their 64 surveyed recommendations (72 per cent).
      • The Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) had low completion rates, reporting they completed 24 of their 47 surveyed recommendations (51 per cent). 
      • The Department of Premier and Cabinet's (DPC) completion rate was also relatively low, reporting they completed 24 of their 44 surveyed recommendations (55 per cent). 

      Figure 1E sets out department completion rates.

      FIGURE 1E: Department completion rates

      FIGURE 1E: Department completion rates

      Source: VAGO.

      Non‐departmental agencies 

      Of the 93 non‐departmental agencies included in this review, 35 reported that they had completed all of their recommendations. These agencies had 12 or fewer recommendations.

      For a list of agency implementation status for this review, refer to Appendix F.

      How long agencies took to complete our recommendations 

      Agencies took a median of 396 calendar days, or 13 months, to complete a recommendation after we tabled the audit in Parliament. The range of time taken to complete a recommendation was between zero days and 58 months. Zero days to complete a recommendation indicates the agency completed the recommendation before we tabled the audit.

      Between years, the time taken to complete recommendations decreased from a median of 52 months in 2015–16 to eight months in 2020–21, showing an improvement in overall timeliness. Figure 1F shows the spread of time taken to complete recommendations by the financial year the audit tabled. 

      FIGURE 1F: Spread of time taken to complete recommendations by financial year

       

      FIGURE 1F: Spread of time taken to complete recommendations by financial year

      Note: The boxes indicate the interquartile range, or middle 50 per cent, of complete recommendations and the whiskers show the extent of minimum and maximum time taken to complete recommendations.
      Source: VAGO.

      The time it takes to complete recommendations can be influenced by the volume and complexity of recommendations. There are also large differences in agency size and resources.

      We asked agencies to indicate how long they expected it would take them to complete a recommendation when we tabled their audit. Agencies established initial timeframes for completion in 809 of the 1 023 accepted recommendations (79 per cent). Of these, they later revised timeframes of 336 recommendations (42 per cent). Six agencies exceeded their expected timeframes for 10 recommendations by a median of seven months.  

      Department completion times

      Departments took between zero days and 46 months, with a median of 13 months, to complete recommendations. 

      Specifically, we found that: 

      • DTF had the longest median completion times of any department. Its 46 completed recommendations required a median of 20 months, with a range of one to 39 months. 
      • DPC followed DTF, its 24 completed recommendation required a median of 17 months, with a range of three to 36 months.
      • All remaining departments had a median completion time of 13 months. DELWP was the most responsive, completing 68 recommendations with a median of 10 months and a range of zero days to 37 months. 

      Figure 1G shows median departmental completion times.

      FIGURE 1G: Median completion times for departments

       

      FIGURE 1G: Median completion times for departments

      Source: VAGO.

      When we took a broader perspective and looked at how long departments took to complete recommendations from 2015–16 to 2020–21, we found that timeliness had progressively improved. As shown in Figure 1H, there is a decrease in the median of months departments took to complete recommendations from 2015–16 and 2020–21. Departments completed recommendations from 2018–19 quicker than previous years, as the percentage of complete recommendations remained high (71 per cent) yet the time taken decreased by a median of 22 months in 2018–19. 

      See Appendix E for a breakdown of between-year trends of departmental completion times. 

      FIGURE 1H: Departmental timeliness by year

      FIGURE 1H: Departmental timeliness by year

      Note: 2015–16 and 2020–21 do not show extensive data because only one and three of the recommendations included in this review were completed in these years, respectively. 
      The boxes indicate the middle 50%, of complete recommendations and the whiskers show the extent of minimum and maximum time taken to complete recommendations.
      Source: VAGO.

      Maximum completion times

      As expected, unresolved recommendations from 2015–16 audits have taken the longest to complete, with a median of 1 594 days (four years and four months). While many agencies completed recommendations from 2015–16 audits in previous years, five recommendations are still open following this review.

      Some agencies have been slow to complete performance audit recommendations. Completion times for individual recommendations have extended up to 4.9 years after the audit tabling date.

      Agencies, audits and recommendations that have taken four or more years to complete are listed in Figure 1I.

      FIGURE 1I: Complete recommendations with extended times 

      Audit name Agency Rec no. Months to complete
      Biosecurity: Livestock DJPR 1 58
      Efficiency and Effectiveness of Hospital Services: Emergency Care Mildura Base Public Hospital 3 54
      Efficiency and Effectiveness of Hospital Services: Emergency Care Albury Wodonga Hospital  1 53
      Efficiency and Effectiveness of Hospital Services: Emergency Care Albury Wodonga Hospital 2 53
      Delivering Services to Citizens and Consumers via Devices of Personal Choice: Phase 2 State Revenue Office 3 52
      Efficiency and Effectiveness of Hospital Services: Emergency Care Mercy Health 3 52

      Source: VAGO. 

      Back to top

      Appendix A. Submissions and comments

      We have consulted with the agencies listed in Appendix D, and we considered their views when reaching our review findings. As required by the Audit Act 1994, we gave a draft copy of this report to those agencies and asked for their submissions and comments. 

      Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of those comments rests solely with the agency head.

      Agencies attested that their survey responses were accurate and complete as of 31 March 2021. We have received responses from agencies seeking to provide updates beyond the attestation date of this review, we have noted these updates and will include them as part of our next review. 

      Response provided by Secretary, Department of Education and Training

      Department of Education and Training response letter

      Response provided by Secretary, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

      Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning response letter

      Response provided by Secretary, Department of Justice and Community Safety

      Department of Justice and Community Safety response letter

      Response provided by Secretary, Department of Transport

      Department of Transport response letter

      Response provided by Chief Executive, The Royal Melbourne Hospital

      Royal Melbourne Hospital response letter

      Response provided by Chief Commissioner, Victoria Police

      Victoria Police response letter

      Back to top

      Appendix B. Acronyms

      Acronyms  
      DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
      DET Department of Education and Training
      DFFH Department of Families, Fairness and Housing
      DH Department of Health
      DJCS Department of Justice and Community Safety
      DJPR Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions
      DoT Department of Transport
      DPC Department of Premier and Cabinet
      DTF Department of Treasury and Finance
      SRO State Revenue Office
      VAGO Victorian Auditor-General’s Office
      VPSC Victorian Public Sector Commission

      Back to top

      Appendix C. About this review

      Who we audited What we assessed What the audit cost
      All agencies are listed in Appendix D. We assessed whether agencies:
      • respond to our performance audit recommendations
      • implement recommendations in a timely manner.
      The cost of this review was $296 520.

      We conducted this limited assurance review in accordance with the Audit Act 1994 and Australian Standard on Assurance Engagements ASAE 3000 Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information.

      A review is a limited assurance engagement that is less in scope than an audit, conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. Consequently, it does not enable us to obtain reasonable assurance that we would become aware of all significant matters that might be identified in a reasonable assurance engagement.

      Our review procedures included asking agencies to complete a survey and attest that the responses provided were accurate and complete as at 31 March 2021. 

      Back to top

      Appendix D. Audits and agencies in this review

      This review includes 1 063 recommendations in 76 audits. We have listed audited agencies with recommendations in these audits below.

      FIGURE D1: 2020–21 audits and agencies

      Audit Date tabled Audited agencies
      Management of the Student Resource Package 05/08/2020 DET
      Rehabilitating Mines 05/08/2020 DELWP, DJPR

      Source: VAGO.

      FIGURE D2: 2019–20 audits and agencies

      Audit Date tabled Audited agencies
      Cenitex: Meeting Customer Needs for ICT Shared Services 17/10/2019 Cenitex, DTF
      Council Libraries 13/11/2019 Alpine Shire Council, Buloke Shire Council, City of Boroondara, DELWP, Eastern Regional Libraries Corporation, Municipal Peninsula Shire Council
      Enrolment Processes at Technical and Further Education Institutes 11/09/2019 Box Hill Institute, DET, Melbourne Polytechnic, Sunraysia Institute, Swinburne University of Technology, William Angliss Institute
      Follow up of Access to Public Dental Services in Victoria 28/11/2019 Dental Health Services Victoria, Department of Health (DH)
      Follow up of Regulating Gambling and Liquor 28/11/2019 Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation
      Freight Outcomes from Regional Rail Upgrades 18/03/2020 Department of Transport (DoT), V/Line
      Managing Development Contributions 18/03/2020 DELWP, State Revenue Office, Victorian Planning Authority
      Managing Registered Sex Offenders 28/08/2019 Victoria Police
      Managing Support and Safety Hubs 27/05/2020 Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH)
      Market-led Proposals 27/11/2019 DTF
      Personnel Security: Due Diligence Over Public Service Employees 21/05/2020 DET, DELWP, DFFH, DH, DJPR, DJCS, DPC, DoT, DTF, Victorian Public Sector Commission (VPSC)
      Protecting Critically Endangered Grasslands 17/06/2020 DELWP
      Ravenhall Prison: Rehabilitating and Reintegrating Prisoners 19/03/2020 DJCS
      Safety on Victoria's Roads—Regional Road Barriers 18/06/2020 DoT, Transport Accident Commission 
      Sexual Harassment in the Victorian Public Service 28/11/2019 DET, DELWP, DFFH, DH, DJPR, DJCS, DPC, DoT, DTF, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, VPSC

      Source: VAGO.

      FIGURE D3: 2018–19 audits and agencies

      Audit Date tabled Audited agencies
      Access to Mental Health Services 21/03/2019 DH
      Child and Youth Mental Health 5/06/2019 DH
      Compliance with the Asset Management Accountability Framework 23/05/2019 DET, DELWP, DFFH, DH, DJPR, DJCS, DPC, DoT, DTF
      Contract Management Capability in DHHS: Service Agreements 20/09/2018 DFFH
      Crime Data 5/09/2018 Victoria Police
      Delivering Local Government Services 19/09/2018 Bayside City Council, City of Wodonga, DELWP, Indigo Shire Council, Moira Shire Council, Wyndham City Council
      Follow up of Oversight and Accountability of Committees of Management 5/09/2018 DELWP
      Fraud and Corruption Control—Local Government 19/06/2019 Greater Shepparton City Council, Strathbogie Shire Council, Wellington Shire Council, Wyndham City Council
      Local Government Assets: Asset Management and Compliance 23/05/2019 City of Darebin, Colac Otway Shire Council, Hindmarsh Shire Council, Mildura Rural City Council, Nillumbik Shire Council
      Local Government Insurance Risks 25/07/2018 City of Ballarat, Benalla Rural City Council, 
      City of Kingston, City of Stonnington, DELWP, Glen Eira City Council, Municipal Association of Victoria, Pyreness Shire Council, Yarra City Council
      Managing Private Medical Practice in Public Hospitals 20/06/2019 DH, Latrobe Regional Hospital, St Vincent's Hospital, Western Health
      Managing Rehabilitation Services in Youth Detention 8/08/2018 DET, DJCS
      Managing the Environmental Impacts of Domestic Wastewater 19/09/2018 DELWP, Environmental Protection Authority Victoria, South East Water, Yarra Ranges Council, Yarra Valley Water, Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
      Managing the Municipal and Industrial Landfill Levy 25/07/2018 DELWP
      Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project—Phase 1: Early Works 6/06/2019 DELWP, DPC, DTF, DoT, DJPR
      Outcomes of Investing in Regional Victoria 2/05/2020 DJPR
      Police Management of Property and Exhibits 5/09/2018 Victoria Police
      Recovering and Reprocessing Resources from Waste 6/06/2019 DELWP, Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group, Sustainability Victoria
      Reporting on Local Government Performance 23/05/2019 Baw Baw Shire Council, Borough of Queenscliffe, City of Casey, DELWP, Horsham Rural City Council, Moonee Valley City Council
      School Compliance with Victoria's Child Safe Standards 20/06/2019 DET, Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority
      School Councils in Government Schools 26/07/2018 DET
      Security and Privacy of Surveillance Technologies in Public Places 19/09/2018 City of Melbourne, East Gippsland Shire Council, Horsham Rural City Council, Hume City Council, Whitehorse City Council
      Security of Government Buildings 29/05/2019 DFFH, DH, DJCS, DPC, DTF
      Security of Patients' Hospital Data 29/05/2019 Barwon Health, DH, Royal Children's Hospital, Royal Victorian Ear and Eye Hospital
      Security of Water Infrastructure Control Systems 29/05/2019 Barwon Water, DELWP, Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Water
      State Purchase Contracts 20/09/2018 DET, DELWP, DFFH, DH, DJCS, DPC, DoT, DTF, DJPR, Victorian Government Purchasing Board

      Source: VAGO.

      FIGURE D4: 2017–18 audits and agencies

      Audit Date tabled Audited agencies
      Assessing Benefits from the Regional Rail Link Project 10/05/2018 DoT, DTF
      Community Health Program 6/06/2018 DH
      Effectively Planning for Population Growth 23/08/2017 DELWP, DH, DJPR
      Follow Up of Selected 2012–13 and 2013–14 Performance Audits 20/06/2018 DELWP, Victorian Fisheries Authority
      Fraud and Corruption Control 29/03/2018 DJPR, DoT
      ICT Disaster Recovery Planning 29/11/2017 DELWP, DFFH, DH, DJPR, DJCS, DoT, Victoria Police
      Improving Victoria's Air Quality 8/03/2018 Environmental Protection Authority Victoria
      Internal Audit Performance 9/08/2017 DELWP, DJPR
      Local Government and Economic Development 8/03/2018 Bass Coast Shire Council, Corangamite Shire Council, DJPR, Loddon Shire Council, Melton City Coucnil, Southern Grampians Shire Council
      Maintaining the Mental Health of Child Protection Practitioners 10/05/2018 DFFH
      Managing Surplus Government Land 8/03/2018 DET, DELWP, DTF
      Managing the Level Crossing Removal Program 14/12/2017 DoT, Major Transport Infrastructure Authority 
      Protecting Victoria's Coastal Assets 29/03/2018 DELWP, DoT, East Gippsland Shire Council, Gippsland Ports, Great Ocean Road Coast Committee, Parks Victoria, Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
      Safety and Cost Effectiveness of Private Prisons 29/03/2018 DJCS
      The Victorian Government ICT Dashboard 20/06/2018 DTF
      V/Line Passenger Services 9/08/2017 DoT
      Victorian Public Hospital Operating Theatre Efficiency 18/10/2017 Austin Health, DH, Melbourne Health

      Source: VAGO.

      FIGURE D5: 2016–17 audits and agencies

      Audit Date tabled Audited agencies
      Board Performance 11/05/2017 DHHS
      Efficiency and Effectiveness of Hospital Services: Emergency Care 26/10/2016 Albury Wodonga Health, Barwon Health, Central Gippsland Health Service, Echuca Regional Health, Goulburn Valley Health, Melbourne Health, Mercy Health, Mildura Base Hospital, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Southwest Healthcase, Wimmera Health Care Group
      ICT Strategic Planning in the Health Sector 24/05/2017 DH
      Maintaining State-Controlled Roadways 22/06/2017 DoT
      Managing Public Sector Records 8/03/2017 DET, DPC, Public Records Office of Victoria
      Managing School Infrastructure 11/05/2017 DET
      Managing Victoria's Public Housing 21/06/2017 DFFH, DPC, DTF
      Public Participation and Community Engagement: Local Government Sector 10/05/2017 DELWP, Maribynong City Council, Mitchell Shire Council, Murrindini Shire Council
      Public Participation in Government Decision-Making 10/05/2017 DPC

      Source: VAGO.

      FIGURE D6: 2015–16 audits and agencies

      Audit Date tabled Audited agencies
      Biosecurity: Livestock 19/08/2015 DJPR
      Delivering Services to Citizens and Consumers via Devices of Personal Choice: Phase 2 07/10/2015 SRO
      Digital Dashboard: Status Review of ICT Projects and Initiatives: Phase 2 09/03/2016 City West Water Corporation, University of Melbourne
      Local Government Service Delivery: Recreational Facilities 23/03/2016 South Gippsland Shire Council
      Managing and Reporting on the Performance and Cost of Capital Projects 04/05/2016 V/Line
      Monitoring Victoria's Water Resources 25/05/2016 Melbourne Water
      Patient Safety in Victorian Public Hospitals 23/03/201 DH

      Source: VAGO.

      Back to top

      Appendix F Agency responses to assurance review

      Agencies were required to self‐attest to the accuracy and completeness of their survey response. The survey sought information on the status of performance audit recommendations:

      • from all VAGO performance audits tabled in Parliament in 2018–19 to 2019–20 and two audits that tabled in early 2020–21
      • that were reported to us in our 2020 survey as unresolved from audits tabled in 2015–16 to 2017–18.

      In total, the survey included 1 063 recommendations from 76 audits involving 102 agencies. 

      In this Appendix, we have included the status and response of the agency to all recommendations in each audit included in this assurance review. Agency responses have not been edited by VAGO.

      For audits that tabled in 2015–16 to 2017–18, agencies may have already completed some recommendations. To view a more complete picture of agency performance visit this report's dashboard at www.audit.vic.gov.au.

      Click the link below to download a CSV copy of agency responses to this assurance review.

       

      Download CSV

      Click here to download agency responses to this assurance review.

      Back to top