“AUDITING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST”
NEWSLETTER, SUMMER 2004

Preparing for change

New challenges for financial managers and auditors

The greatest challenge financial managers and auditors in the public sector will face next year will be the implementation of an entirely new set of accounting standards from 1 January 2005, following the decision of Australia to adopt international accounting standards. It is too early to tell how much work will be required by agencies, their advisors and our Office in implementing these changes, but they do represent one of the most extensive changes faced by accountants and auditors in recent years. This is a challenge we must all prepare for, and rise to, if confusion and adverse outcomes are to be avoided.

The latest developments are outlined in this newsletter; continuing our commitment to keep you informed of progress in these areas.

Our performance assessed – moving in the right direction

Over the last 6 months, my Office has been the subject of a performance audit, undertaken by Mr John Phillips of Acumen Alliance. This is a statutory performance audit undertaken at least once every 3 years to determine whether we are achieving our objectives. The report was tabled in parliament recently, and concluded:

• the Victorian Auditor-General is complying with the legislative objectives, undertaking the audit mandate in accordance with the Audit Act and Australian Auditing Standards, and substantially achieving the corporate objectives

• the Office is operating in compliance with the Audit Act

• by reference to Audit Offices in other Australian jurisdictions, the Auditor-General and the Office are largely operating effectively, economically and efficiently.

We plan to include more details on the findings of the performance audit, and our response to the matters raised, in the next issue of Auditing in the Public Interest.

I am pleased with the outcome of the audit. The conclusions reached confirm that we are moving in the right direction, but with all journeys (audits) we can do some things better. Our latest corporate plan that goes to 2007 continues our purpose to improve performance and accountability in the public sector. I have accepted those recommendations that fall within my responsibility to implement. I have also given my support to those recommendations that require decision by parliament.

We will be working to implement the recommendations over the next few months.

Our experiences with the performance audit has reinforced the importance of maintaining effective, professional and cooperative working relationships between clients and the auditor, to achieve positive outcomes for all concerned. Good relationships do not affect an auditor’s independence; they increase the opportunities for improvement in practices to be well received and implemented. It was, therefore, an important learning experience for my staff.

Reports tabled in parliament

Our newsletter provides details on our most recent reports tabled in parliament. All these reports are available on our website at <www.audit.vic.gov.au>.

I wish you all a happy festive season and a prosperous new year.

Wayne Cameron
Auditor-General

RECENT REPORTS TABLED IN PARLIAMENT

Report on public sector agencies – Results of special reviews and other studies

This omnibus report, which was tabled in parliament on 17 August 2004, set out the results of 4 audits focusing on issues of significant public interest. The first audit examined the operation of water trading in Victoria. The second assessed the management of purchasing and accounts payable activity across the public sector. In both cases, the report identified a need for improvement in the areas examined, including a need for structural and administrative reform in the case of water trading. Recommendations were provided to strengthen agency practices and governance arrangements. I particularly commend the report on purchasing and accounts payable to you as an easy way of making your own assessment about your organisation’s performance.

Hume spillway.

The third audit included in this report (a performance audit), examined the development of policy advice by government departments, while the fourth (a follow-up study) examined the progress made by the Environment Protection Authority to address the significant matters raised in our June 2002 performance audit report Managing Victoria’s air quality.

In the case of policy advice, the report identified various opportunities for departments to improve the planning and management of policy development, and to better inform ministers about the risks associated with recommended policy positions. In the case of air quality management, the report recognised the positive action taken to address certain of our previous concerns, but identified a continuing need for action in a number of important areas, including the evaluation of major improvement initiatives to assess their effectiveness.

Report of the Auditor-General on the Finances of the State of Victoria, 2003-04

This report was tabled in parliament on 18 November 2004. It analyses the state’s financial performance and position for the 2003-04 financial year.

The state’s financial condition improved in 2003-04 and remained resilient and sound, but continues to be significantly influenced by external factors, including the performance of equity markets and the property market.

The state generated a substantial operating surplus for the year - a significant improvement on the previous year’s result. This improvement was mainly due to the impact of improvements in equity markets on investment revenues and superannuation costs. Returns from equity investment markets have improved from an average of negative 7 per cent in 2002-03 to an average of 21 per cent in the year under review.

Our analysis of the state’s financial performance over a 5-year period shows that the state’s revenue growth has outpaced the rate of inflation by 17.5 per cent, while the growth in state spending has outpaced the rate of inflation by 9 per cent.

The volatility of revenue from investment and property markets, combined with the growing costs of increased service delivery, industrial settlements and commitments associated with “offbalance sheet” financing arrangements, will require the government to be constantly vigilant to ensure that public sector activity and program levels remain sustainable over the long-term.

Spencer Street Station redevelopment works – a major infrastructure project.

The government has identified a number of changes needed to its accounting policies as a result of implementing the standards developed as part of the transition to international financial reporting standards. These changes may have a material impact on the state’s financial position and financial performance. We will continue to work closely with all public sector agencies in implementing and monitoring the impact of the new standards.

Auditor-General’s Report - Results of 30 June 2004 financial statement and other audits

This report, tabled on 1 December 2004, set out:

• the results of financial statement audits for 469 state and local government agencies with 30 June 2004 balance dates

• the outcomes of an audit of the administration of grants by 5 state agencies (including one local government council), focusing on grants provided to the Cambodian Association of Victoria.

The 30 June 2004 audit round resulted in the issue of 454 clear audit opinions and 9 qualified audit opinions on the financial statements of public sector agencies. We also issued 92 clear audit opinions and 2 qualified audit opinions on performance statements of municipal councils and regional water authorities.

There were fewer qualified audit opinions issued for 2003-04 financial and other accountability statements than for 2002-03 statements. This reflected concerted action by agencies to resolve a number of the issues previously identified.

There was some improvement in the number of agencies completing their financial and other accountability statements on time. Seventy-one per cent of state agencies met the 12-week statutory reporting requirement (66 per cent in 2003). Ninety-five per cent of local government agencies met the 3-month statutory reporting requirement for that sector (95 per cent in 2003). The improvement was particularly evident for the state’s major agencies. Agencies can further improve the timeliness of audited financial statement completion, and we made several recommendations to this effect.

Notwithstanding the improved timeliness of financial reporting by agencies, the annual reports of most government agencies were not tabled until the latest possible date allowed by legislation. This needs to improve in future years so that the accountability benefits of completing audited financial statements in much shorter time frames are not compromised.

While public sector agencies had generally established effective systems of internal control, there was scope for improvement by some agencies - particularly in relation to the management of outsourced services, the operation of audit committees, information technology controls, and purchasing and accounts payable processes and controls.

The report highlighted the continuing financial difficulties faced by a number of the state’s public hospitals and municipal councils, and the need to strengthen the accountability arrangements for the state’s 1 632 government schools and the 1 240 voluntary fire brigades across Victoria.

Finally, the report raised several concerns about the administration of grants by 5 public agencies (including grants provided to the Cambodian Association of Victoria over 5 years), and made several recommendations to strengthen agency policies and practices.

Measuring the success of the Our Forests, Our Future policy

In 2003, we planned an audit to examine the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the Our Forests, Our Future – Balancing Communities, Jobs and the Environment policy. At that time, we broke the audit into 2 phases. The first phase concentrated on the buy-back of sawlog licences (and the associated worker and contractor assistance programs) required to meet the reduced timber harvesting volumes that was a key objective of the policy. The results of that audit were contained in our October 2003 report titled Managing logging in State forests.

The second phase of the audit (which was tabled in parliament on 7 October 2004) concentrates on assessing the effectiveness of the implementation and impact of the Our Forests, Our Future policy.

We initially examined what measures existed to report publicly on the progress of the policy. Though there are several different measuring and reporting frameworks in place for the broader topic of sustainable forest management, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), the lead agency across government for the implementation of this policy, has not yet established a specific reporting framework for the Our Forests, Our Future policy.

Forest ecosystems need to be protected in order to maintain their productive capacity.

Consequently, in this second phase of the audit, we have developed performance indicators, measures and standards that may form the basis of future performance audits of the implementation of Our Forests, Our Future. We have done this in consultation with DSE and other agencies.

We are providing these assessment tools in advance to assist parliament, DSE and other stakeholders in gauging whether the agencies involved in Our Forests, Our Future are implementing the policy as planned, and whether the intended policy outcomes are being achieved.

Meeting our future Victorian Public Service workforce needs

There are significant issues confronting the sustainability of workforces throughout the world, including the ageing of the workforce, likely reductions in the overall future size of the workforce, increased competition for knowledge workers and changing employee attitudes to issues such as work/life balance. The Victorian Public Service (VPS) also faces particular challenges in planning for its workforce so that the objectives of government can be met.

Major Projects Victoria staff on site.

The audit assessed strategic workforce planning across the VPS – at both a central and departmental level. A set of principles for better practice workforce planning were developed as a result of research in private and public organisations with high reputations for undertaking effective workforce planning. These principles were used as audit criteria.

The report, which was tabled in parliament on 2 December 2004, found that workforce planning in the agencies was variable, with some demonstrating better practice. As well, there is a need for improved coordination of the VPS workforce by a central agency.

Managing school attendance

Attending school regularly is a critical factor in student success, and poor attendance can have lifelong consequences for students. Students who are regularly absent from school are at the greatest risk of dropping out of school early, becoming long-term unemployed, being caught in the poverty trap, depending on welfare and being involved in the justice system.

Sound management of student attendance is one of the most important measures for minimising student absenteeism. This includes ensuring that students and their parents are aware of attendance requirements, following-up promptly and consistently on absences and reinforcing the message that “it is not OK to be away” when students are absent without good reason. It also includes gathering good information on trends in absence and on the reasons for absence, so that emerging issues can be identified, and strategies to address the causes of absence from school can be developed and evaluated to see if they are making a difference.

This report was tabled in parliament on 8 December 2004, and considered how effective these attendance management practices in schools are, and whether the Department of Education and Training (DET) and schools have clear and rigorous processes which form the foundation for effective student attendance management. While the audit found that key initiatives implemented by DET whose aims include minimising student absenteeism are soundly based, the lack of available evaluative data meant that we were unable to conclude whether these strategies have been effective from the perspective of student attendance.

Regular attendance is critical to future student success.

The audit found that while schools and DET place considerable focus and attention on addressing school absenteeism, weaknesses in current attendance management practices mean that it is difficult for schools to know whether these efforts are effective.

Further attention needs to be paid to the following areas:

• Developing consistent, effective follow-up processes in schools for unexplained and unapproved absences.

• Developing a more complete and accurate picture of student absenteeism based on rigorous and comprehensive information at a state and school level. This should take into account not only the incidence, but also the reasons for absence, and levels of unapproved and unexplained absences.

• Schools need to build stronger partnerships to support student attendance with parents and the local community, including greater involvement of school councils.

• Schools need to better utilise the potential of the Computerised Administrative Systems Environment in Schools (CASES21) for understanding and managing student absence by improving user skills.

Improvements in these areas will significantly enhance the capacity of both schools and DET to better understand and address the rising trend in student absenteeism.

2003-04 annual report

Our annual report for 2003-04 was tabled in parliament on 12 October 2004. The report is themed around our activities for the year which were aimed at providing assurance, improving performance, adding value.

Some of the highlights contained in the annual report were:

• high levels of satisfaction with the services we provided to our clients

• 16 major audit reports tabled in parliament

• 3 good practice guides, and an occasional paper on sustainability were released

• we exceeded our timeliness targets for issuing audit opinions, management letters and reports to ministers

• a new 3-year IT strategic plan was developed

• our methodologies for financial and performance auditing and special reviews were updated.

We place a high value on our people management policies and practices. Our 2003-04 annual report contained information on our policies and practices which ensure that we have a professional work force and a safe working environment.

UPCOMING REPORTS

Reports scheduled to be tabled in the first half of 2005

Our 2004-05 Annual Plan, which was tabled in parliament on 23 June 2004, contains information on our parliamentary reporting program for the 2004-05 year.

For the first half of 2005, we plan to present the following publications for tabling in parliament:

• Regulating operational rail safety

• Management of OH&S in local government

• Managing adverse events in hospitals

• Out-of-home care

• Health purchasing practices

• Management of intellectual property

• Stormwater drainage in metropolitan Melbourne

• Human resource management – Recruitment

• Report of the Auditor-General – Results of special reviews

• Report of the Auditor-General – Results of financial statement audits for agencies with other than 30 June 2004 balance dates

• Control and compliance audits – Administration of grants

• Annual plan, 2005-06.

Information on these publications can be found on our website at <www.audit.vic.gov.au >, then search under <Audits in progress >.

ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

We have recently established a Special Investigations Unit. The unit is staffed by a small number of experienced personnel, dedicated to quickly responding to issues drawn to our attention by our stakeholders – including parliamentarians, audit clients and members of the community.

Issues referred to the unit will be investigated quickly and, where appropriate, will be reported to parliament immediately after the investigation is completed.

ACCOUNTING STANDARDS UPDATE

IFRS and the public sector

(The following information is derived from a presentation to an IFRS Summit Conference held in Sydney on 8 November 2004, by Jim Dixon, Executive Director, Accounting and Auditing Policy, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.)

One of the most ironic outcomes of the Australian move to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is that entities within the public sector, which have the least to gain from IFRS, are going to be among the first to report under the new standards. For example, for universities, there will be few benefits in this move to IFRS, but because they balance at 31 December, they will be among the first to produce a financial report using the new standards. The federal government rejected the call by universities for a delay in implementing IFRS, not wishing to establish any precedent for other entities that felt aggrieved.

The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) when issuing AASB 1047 Disclosing the Impacts of Adopting Australian Equivalents to IFRS focused on organisations with 30 June balance dates. However, organisations with 31 December balance dates at the end of 2004 are encouraged, but not compelled, to comply with the requirements set down in AASB 1047 for 30 June 2005. While this is not impossible, they are being asked to do this before the members of the Group of 100, who pushed, along with the Australian Stock Exchange, for the adoption of IFRS.

As many commentators have already acknowledged, Australia has been very proactive in adopting international standards. In contrast, other countries have been more cautious and circumspect; New Zealand is waiting until 2007, Europe is only requiring listed companies to comply, and the USA has no timetable for adoption at all.

In Victoria, the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) is in the process of issuing about 15 proposed Financial Reporting Directives (FRDs) which will more restrictively define the response required by entities in the Victorian public sector to these new standards.

For-profit/Not-for-profit

From the perspective of the public sector, one of the most challenging issues is to distinguish between a for-profit entity and a not-for-profit entity. The definition has altered from existing Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), to a position where a not-for-profit entity will be an entity whose principal objective is not the generation of profit. Hence, on balance, more entities are likely to be classified as “not-for-profit”.

Somewhat surprisingly, given that the AASB has built a degree of relief into the new standards for the not-for-profit sector, there has been a push back from a number of Victorian public sector agencies because they appear to believe “not-for-profit” indicates an entity that is not focused on making efficient and effective use of its resources. What needs to be made clear is that “for-profit/not-for-profit” is an accounting classification and that there is an expectation, regardless of the classification, that all entities in our community make efficient and effective use of the resources at their disposal.

There are a number of consequences for implementation and reporting that arise from this separation of requirements by for-profit compared with not-for-profit.

In the situation where a not-for-profit parent, like a university, has a material for-profit subsidiary, the consolidation standard clearly requires that a subsidiary adopt parent entity accounting policies in providing the data to the parent to produce the economic entity report. However, of the agencies which are in this situation in Victoria, many are hoping that the Minister for Finance will issue an FRD that permits the consolidation of entities with dissimilar accounting policies. For the purist, this is an unacceptable approach. However, for a research company of a university with little or no accounting support function, the challenge of providing 2 sets of measures for the same underlying position is likely to be regarded as a pedantic pain!

Financial currency and reporting currency

The foreign currency standard introduces the concepts of functional currency and reporting currency. The foreign currency standard only permits a choice in respect of reporting currency. A functional currency is determined by reference to a set of defined criteria, which are not in any way optional. The Minister for Finance has declared the Australian dollar to be the reporting currency. Victoria intends to require all Victorian public sector entities to deem the cumulative foreign exchange translation differences for all foreign operations to be zero at the date of transition.

Accounting for property, plant and equipment

In accounting for property, plant and equipment, and determining whether the associated impairment standard is to apply, a not-for-profit entity heads down a different track than the for-profit entity. The outcome for not-for-profit entities under the new standards is not significantly different from existing GAAP. Also, the good news for not-for-profit entities is that grouping is retained for revaluation increments and decrements. In contrast, for-profit entities will be required to account for property, plant and equipment on an individual asset basis.

Cash-generating unit

Moving to the issue of a cash-generating unit (CGU), the CGU can be identified in both a for-profit and a not-for-profit entity. For-profit entities will use the present value of future cash flows to measure value, both for a CGU and for individual assets (in the absence of a market price being readily obtainable). In contrast, not-for-profit entities are referred to written-down replacement cost to measure recoverable amount of an asset.

The justification for this measure is that replacement value implicitly reflects a measure of future service potential and written-down replacement cost, therefore, should reflect just how much service potential is left in the asset being held on the balance sheet. It is very important for the public to understand the implications that flow from the difference in measures. Hence, while the realisable value of the asset may be negligible, the same asset’s written-down replacement value could be a significantly material amount. Knowing this background leads to completely different conclusions by someone attempting to analyse the situation.

Superannuation - defined benefits

Entities that are sponsoring defined benefit funds should be aware that AASB 119 Employee Benefits permits an employer in the case of a multi-employer fund to use defined contribution disclosures when they are unable to report due to insufficient information under the defined benefit requirements. Our Office has received requests from local government authorities, hospitals and universities to be permitted to avoid the more demanding disclosures required for a defined benefit fund. The proposed FRD 12 Defined Benefit Superannuation Obligations does not specifically address the issue of permitting entities to apply the defined contributions disclosures to defined benefits funds where there is insufficient information. It, however, clearly identifies those entities that should recognise defined benefit liabilities or surpluses, and provides an exemption for all other agencies. The exempted agencies are required to measure and recognise their superannuation liabilities/assets as if the plans were defined contributions plans consistent with the requirements of AASB 119 Employee Benefits.

Intangible assets

Under another proposed FRD, intangible assets held by Victorian public sector entities will be measured at cost rather than at fair value. Consistent with this policy, those intangibles valued at fair value before the transition date are to be measured at deemed cost. While the necessary criteria of an active market is required to fair value intangible assets, this criteria is unlikely to be satisfied in Australia. This policy approach is indicative of a move by the state to reduce possible volatility in future financial results.

Comparative information

It is assumed that, like many entities in the private sector, comparative information for financial instruments and insurance contracts will not be restated which, in effect, makes 2005-06 the transition year for these items. With the general insistence on the need for comparatives by the IASB and the AASB, one wonders even more why comparatives are a requirement when financial instruments can be exempted.

As to the state of readiness, our Office is witnessing a considerable range of preparedness. Some groups, in a cooperative approach between members, have prepared separate papers on each standard covering the likely impacts of that standard. In contrast, some entities are just coming to grips with the fact that AASB 1047 is asking them to please explain their approach and progress in implementing the Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AEIFRS).

The public sector trilogy

(AAS 27 Financial Reporting by Local Governments, AAS 29 Financial Reporting by Government Departments and AAS 31 Financial Reporting by Governments)

The IASB has specific responsibility for developing accounting standards for entities in the private sector involved in cross-border transactions. As a consequence, the IASB has not addressed the specific requirements of accounting and reporting by entities in the public sector. However, this responsibility currently rests at the international level with the Public Sector Committee (PSC) of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). At the national level, the AASB has responsibility for a number of standards specifically established for the public sector, which are currently being redrafted.

The major changes being effected to AAS 27, AAS 29 and AAS 31 include:

Financial Reporting by Local Governments

Under current proposals contained in exposure draft ED 125 Financial Reporting by Local Governments, the existing standard covering local government accounting (AAS 27) will be considerably reduced in content. ED 125 proposes to remove matters already covered in other standards and contain reference only to specific issues, like the need to disclose the nature and objectives of each broad function that the local government entity engages in, as well as clarifying the disclosures required for restricted assets.

For example, the proposals, if implemented, will remove explicit reference to distinguishing between contributions by owners and others, and of capital expenditure commitments. The concepts of reciprocal and non-reciprocal similarly will be removed in accounting for contributions and revenue.

However, requirements relating to the transfer of assets and liabilities between local governments at no or nominal costs will remain consistent with AAS 27. Also, the need to disclose the nature and objectives of each broad function of local government will be retained. Local government entities will be encouraged to report non-financial measures of performance and to disclose performance against budget.

At its October 2004 meeting, the AASB confirmed its decision to focus on high-level principles and not to provide specific guidance on particular circumstances that a local government may face. Therefore, the principles will focus on rights and obligations. When an entity has no discretion to avoid an obligation, a liability will arise. In other circumstances, a revenue arises.

The AASB decided that the requirements for revenue recognition by local governments could be expressed in a local government standard substantially through a cross-reference to the principles in AASB 118 Revenue and AASB 1004 Contributions (amended for the most recent AASB decisions). Hence, AEIFRS will impact on local government accounting and reporting.

Financial Reporting by Government Departments

The AASB previously released ED 10Y Financial Reporting by Government Departments, which, if implemented, would remove the differences between the requirements for government departments currently set out in AAS 29 and the requirements for other entities that apply the other standards generally. However, the AASB has subsequently decided that it will issue a draft industry-based standard with a scope limited to government departments.

The AASB also decided that a government department is a reporting entity and will be required to prepare a general purpose financial report (GPFR). The GPFR will include all controlled (recognised) items and other (reported, but not recognised) items, that is, those items managed on behalf of the government but not controlled by the department. The principles in UIG Interpretation 1038 Contributions by Owners Made to Wholly-Owned Public Sector Entities will continue to apply. Hence, AEIFRS will also impact accounting and reporting by government departments.

Financial Reporting by Governments

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has directed the AASB not only to converge and harmonise with IFRS, but also to harmonise Government Finance Statistics (GFS) and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). GFS is a framework designed and maintained by the International Monetary Fund to facilitate macro-economic analysis. Currently, whole-of-government general purpose financial reporting under accrual accounting is set down in AAS 31 Financial Reporting by Governments.

The AASB’s approach to this harmonisation project is to focus firstly on general purpose financial reporting by state, territory and Commonwealth governments, including sector reporting. In the second stage, the AASB will address the general purpose financial reporting needs of entities in the general government sector and the third phase will deal with general purpose financial reporting by other public sector entities, including local governments, universities and government business enterprises. However, the AASB does not intend to develop standards for budgetary reporting.

Of special significance to the GFS/GAAP project is the IASB’s Performance Reporting project. There is a marked similarity in the criteria under GFS for separating items between the Operating Statement and the Statement of Other Economic Flows, and that used to classify items in the Performance Statement between remeasurements and profit before re-measurements. It is claimed that, of the 11 differences identified between GFS and GAAP, at least 7 of these are addressed by classification of these items in the separate columns of the proposed Performance Statement. Unfortunately, the performance reporting project is some time from completion.

At its October 2004 meeting, the AASB confirmed its decision to regard the General Government Sector (GGS) as a sector of whole-of-government and specify whole-of-government general purpose financial report (GPFR) requirements that include disclosure of a “partially consolidated” GGS financial report, which could be extracted as a stand-alone financial report that is not a GPFR. The AASB decided that a separate industry-based standard should be developed that specifies requirements for the special purpose financial report for the GGS, as defined under GFS, in which the GGS is exempted from full consolidation of certain controlled entities. The AASB is continuing to consider draft formats for a statement of “financial performance and fiscal impact” for GGS. The AASB has decided that it is only necessary to reconcile GAAP numbers to GFS numbers in the transactions and other economic flows columns, and that it is not appropriate to present an aggregate of GFS result of transactions and result of other economic flows.

Concluding comments

The decision of the AASB to proceed with sector-neutral standards has produced some challenges in the context of harmonising IFRS. This decision has resulted in additional clauses within the standards which, if followed by the entity, would prevent it from claiming compliance with IFRS. Currently, the AASB is very much focused on public sector issues, with a particular emphasis on resolving the GFS/GAAP reconciliation issue.

OFFICE STAFF NEWS

The following senior staff movements have taken place since our last newsletter.

Appointments

• Trish Brown, Director, Performance Audit.

• Kim Lazenby, acting Director, Performance Audit.

• Alison Hutchison, Director, Strategic Audit Planning, Policies and Standards, responsible for Health.

Internal transfers

• Scott Bayley, Director, Performance Audit, to Director, Strategic Audit Planning, Policies and Standards, with responsibility for Environment and State Development.

• Matthew Brennan, Director, Strategic Audit Planning, Policies and Standards, to Director, in charge of a new Special Investigations Unit.

Secondments

• David Gowland, Director, Financial Audit, on secondment from RMIT.

• Ellen Holland, Director, Performance Audit, seconded to Department of Human Services.

Departures

• Rob Fearnside, Director, Strategic Audit Planning, Policies and Standards, previously responsible for Education and State Development.

• Terri Jackson, Director, Strategic Audit Planning, Policies and Standards, previously responsible for Health.