Appendix B. Audits and agencies
Figure B1
2017–18 audits and agencies
|
Audit |
Date tabled |
Audited agencies |
|---|---|---|
|
Assessing Benefits from the Regional Rail Link Project |
Appendix A. Submissions and comments
We have consulted with the agencies listed in Appendix B, and we considered their views when reaching our review findings. As required the Audit Act 1994, we gave a draft copy of this report, or relevant extracts, 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.
Responses were received as follows:
3 Monitoring and oversight of recommendations
We asked the 64 agencies included in this review to provide information on how they monitor the implementation of performance audit recommendations.
This Part provides information on how agencies allocate responsibility for tracking proposed actions. We also considered what arrangements are in place for agencies to review progress and close off recommendations when complete.
2 Agency responses to recommendations
This Part provides information on the extent to which agencies accept and implement our performance audit recommendations, including their timeliness.
2.1 Conclusion
Nothing has come to our attention to indicate that, overall, agencies are not effectively implementing past performance audit recommendations.
Most agencies accepted audit recommendations and have taken action to complete or progress their implementation. However, this action is not always timely, which all agencies can work to improve.
1 Context
We published 71 performance audits between 2015–16 and 2017–18.
In this review, we examined progress made by agencies on recommendations from 44 of those audits—including the 17 performance audit reports we published in 2017–18, for which we assessed the status of recommendations for the first time. The other 27 are audits from earlier years that had recommendations outstanding.
Overview
Context
Through our performance audits, we identify opportunities for public agencies to improve how they work. We do this by uncovering risks, weaknesses and poor performance, as well as by sharing examples of better practice. We then make recommendations to agencies to address areas for improvement.
Acronyms
Acronyms
| DEDJTR | Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources |
| DELWP | Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning |
| DET | Department of Education and Training |
| DHHS | Department of Health and Human Services |
| DJCS | Department of Justice and Community Safety |
| DJPR | Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions |
Transmittal letter
Independent assurance report to Parliament
Ordered to be published
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER June 2020
PP No 137, Session 2018–20
The Hon Shaun Leane MLC
President
Legislative Council
Parliament House
Melbourne
President
Legislative Council
Parliament House
Melbourne
The Hon Colin Brooks MP
Speaker
Legislative Assembly
Parliament House
Melbourne
Speaker
Legislative Assembly
Parliament House
Melbourne
Dear Presiding Officers
Responses to Performance Audit Recommendations 2015–16 to 2017–18
Body
In our first Assurance Review, we looked at how public entities monitored and responded to performance audit recommendations made by VAGO between 2015-16 and 2017-18.
Nothing has come to our attention to indicate that overall, agencies are not effectively implementing past performance audit recommendations.
Most agencies report having governance arrangements that allow their senior management and audit committees to monitor progress in implementing our audit recommendations.
Appendix B. Data analysis methodology
Figure B1
Compliance with police checks
Report references:
- Audit Overview—Figure A
- Part 2—Figure 2B
|
|
DHHS |
DPC |
DTF |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Data source |
|