Background

1. The Australian Government’s campaign advertising framework (the framework) applies to non-corporate Commonwealth entities under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act).¹ The overarching aim of the framework, introduced in 2008, is to provide the Parliament and the community with confidence that public funds are used to meet the genuine information needs of the community.²

2. The government periodically issues guidance for entities undertaking information and advertising campaigns. The most recent version of the Australian Government Guidelines on Information and Advertising Campaigns by non-corporate Commonwealth entities (the Guidelines) was released in December 2022 (2022 Guidelines)³, replacing the October 2020 Guidelines (2020 Guidelines). The Guidelines are administered by the Department of Finance (Finance) and state that they:

operate on the underpinning premise that:

1. members of the public have equal rights to access comprehensive information about government policies, programs and services which affect their entitlements, rights and obligations; and
2. governments may legitimately use public funds to explain government policies, programs or services, to inform members of the public of their obligations, rights and entitlements, to encourage informed consideration of issues or to change behaviour.⁴

3. The Guidelines apply to all information and advertising campaigns⁵ undertaken in Australia by non-corporate Commonwealth entities.⁶ Entities subject to them:

must be able to demonstrate compliance with the five overarching principles when planning, developing and implementing publicly-funded information and advertising campaigns. The principles require that campaigns are:

• relevant to government responsibilities
• presented in an objective, fair and accessible manner
• objective and not directed at promoting party political interests
• justified and undertaken in an efficient, effective and relevant manner, and
• compliant with legal requirements and procurement policies and procedures⁷

Rationale for undertaking the audit

4. This audit is part of an ongoing program of performance audits on Australian Government advertising. The rationale for undertaking this audit is to provide the Parliament with information on key developments in the framework since the period covered by the 2022 ANAO audit⁸, when the ANAO last reported on its operation.

5. The audit provides independent assurance on whole-of-government administration of the framework by the Department of Finance and selected entities’ compliance with the Guidelines and the wider framework requirements.

Audit objective and criteria

6. The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Finance’s and selected entities’ implementation of the Australian Government’s campaign advertising framework.

7. To form a conclusion against this objective, the following high-level criteria were adopted:

• Does the Department of Finance effectively administer the Australian Government’s campaign advertising framework?
• Were selected campaigns compliant with the Australian Government’s campaign advertising framework?

8. The audit examined developments in the administration of the framework from November 2021 to November 2024. Three campaigns were selected for review:

• One Talk at a Time campaign, conducted from October 2023 to April 2025, administered by the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD)⁹;
• Your Answer Matters campaign, conducted from August to October 2023, administered by Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)¹⁰; and
• Youth Vaping Education (phase one) campaign, conducted from February to June 2024, administered by the Department of Health and Aged Care (Health).¹¹

Conclusion

9. Finance has been effective at administering the framework. AGD and Health were largely compliant with the framework. The AEC largely complied with its internal requirements and the intent of the framework.

10. Finance has supported entities undertaking campaigns and has arrangements in place to manage brand safety risks relating to advertising on social media platforms. There are emerging gaps relating to the identification and management of risks, including to brand safety, associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies in government advertising campaigns, and the changing nature of campaign activities, such as the use of media partnerships and influencers to reach target audiences in government campaigns. Finance extended the whole-of-government Master Media Agency contract after all extension options had been exercised. Finance has met its reporting requirements for expenditure on advertising campaigns.

11. AGD’s One Talk at a Time campaign largely complied with the review, certification and publication requirements of the framework. AGD complied with the requirements of Principles 1 to 3 and largely complied with Principles 4 and 5 of the 2020 Guidelines. Campaign effectiveness was reduced by the delayed implementation of pre-launch public relations activities. Not all campaign materials contained appropriate attribution of Australian Government involvement and two procurements were not accurately reported on AusTender. The advertising component of the campaign was evaluated, with the evaluation report finding that the campaign ‘achieved’ one objective and ‘partially achieved’ two objectives. At November 2024, an evaluation addressing other aspects of the campaign had not been undertaken as public relations activities were still underway.

12. Since 2009, the AEC has had an exemption from most aspects of the framework and has committed to complying with the intent of the 2022 Guidelines. Documentation capturing the AEC’s requirements for campaign development and certification, known as ‘AEC communication campaigns: Guidelines and mandatory checklist’ (AEC Guidelines), was in draft and there was no documented approval. The AEC’s Your Answer Matters campaign largely complied with the review and publication requirements. Publication requirements were met, although AEC did not publish campaign research reports, did not document consideration of whether doing so was appropriate and there were inaccuracies in the reporting of campaign expenditure figures in the AEC annual report and subsequent reporting to the Department of Finance. The AEC complied with Principles 1 to 4 of the 2022 Guidelines and largely complied with Principle 5. Legal advice addressing all legal requirements of Principle 5 was finalised after the campaign had commenced. The AEC’s requirements for attribution of AEC contribution to media partnerships and public relations materials was not documented. The AEC evaluated the campaign with the evaluation report finding that of the total 23 objectives, 16 were ‘met’, six were ‘partly met’ and one was ‘not met’.

13. Health largely complied with the review, certification and publication requirements of the framework. Health complied with the requirements of Principles 1, 3 and 4 of the 2022 Guidelines and largely complied with Principles 2 and 5 of the 2022 Guidelines. Health did not document how campaign imagery reflected a diverse range of Australians. Not all campaign materials contained attribution of Australian Government involvement. Health evaluated the Youth Vaping Education (phase one) campaign to determine its effectiveness. The evaluation report consolidated the campaign’s original seven objectives into four objectives. The evaluation found that two objectives were achieved and two objectives were partially achieved.

Supporting findings

Administration of the Australian Government campaign advertising framework — Finance

14. Finance maintains a suite of guidance documents on a clearly signposted section of its website and manages a campaign community through its GovTEAMS site to support entities undertaking campaigns throughout the campaign advertising development process. Finance facilitates the Independent Communications Committee’s review process and provides advice to government regarding requests for exemption from the Guidelines. Finance has established arrangements to receive feedback from suppliers and entities through evaluations undertaken at the end of campaigns, with annual reviews providing a whole-of-government view across all campaigns. (See paragraphs 2.3 to 2.21)

15. Finance has arrangements to manage risks relating to brand safety on social media platforms. Given the changing nature of campaign activities there are emerging gaps in relation to the use of media partnerships, public relations and influencers. Gaps relate to the appropriateness of the level of information relating to these activities provided for final government review and the attribution of campaign materials. There is an absence of guidance around emerging risks, including to brand safety, relating to the potential use of AI and emerging technologies in advertising and information campaigns. Finance extended the whole-of-government Master Media Agency contract after all extension options had been exercised. ( See paragraphs 2.22 to 2.80)

16. Finance has reported to the Parliament on annual media placement and associated campaign development expenditure by non-corporate Commonwealth entities, for campaigns with expenditure greater than $250,000 (exclusive of GST), in its annual report on Campaign Advertising by Australian Government Departments and Entities. Details of expenditure relating to Finance’s contracts with the Master Media Agency and Independent Communications Committee (ICC) members have not been included in these reports. Finance guidance does not address the publication of advertising campaign research reports which, under the 2022 Guidelines, must be published on entity websites ‘where it is appropriate to do so’ for campaigns with an expenditure of $250,000 (exclusive of GST) or more. (See paragraphs 2.81 to 2.93)

One Talk at a Time campaign

17. AGD’s One Talk at a Time campaign received government approvals in accordance with the framework requirements applying at the time it was considered.

18. The Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department (Secretary of AGD), as the accountable authority, certified that the campaign complied with all five principles of the 2020 Guidelines and the certification was published on AGD’s website, as required. The Secretary’s certification was informed by a third-party certification from the ICC, as required by the 2020 Guidelines, and AGD advice on compliance. AGD provided the Attorney-General with the signed Secretary’s certification.

19. AGD complied with publication requirements, except for those relating to the statement in its 2023–24 annual report. AGD published its developmental research report on the One Talk at a Time campaign website. (See paragraphs 3.14 to 3.24)

20. AGD complied with Principles 1 to 3 of the 2020 Guidelines and largely complied with Principles 4 and 5.

21. For Principle 4, campaign effectiveness was reduced by the delayed execution of pre-launch public relations activities. For Principle 5, 17 of the 21 media partnership materials had appropriate attribution statements noting Australian Government involvement and two of the campaign procurements were not accurately reported on AusTender. (See paragraphs 3.25 to 3.62)

22. Advertising components of the One Talk at a Time campaign were evaluated to determine their effectiveness. This evaluation identified that the advertising component of the campaign ‘achieved’ one objective and ‘partially achieved’ two objectives. At November 2024, the planned integrated evaluation of all campaign components, including media partnerships and public relations, had not been completed.

23. The performance of the campaign was monitored against media metrics, including key performance indicators (KPIs). AGD received in-flight monitoring of the campaign’s performance, including a mid-campaign report and a final media performance report. (See paragraphs 3.63 to 3.71)

Your Answer Matters campaign

24. Due to its exemption, the AEC was not subject to review by the ICC or government review and approval processes. The AEC had documented requirements for campaign development and certification in the form of the AEC Guidelines. The version of the AEC Guidelines used for the Your Answer Matters campaign was in draft and there was no documented approval.

25. Under the AEC Guidelines, the AEC has committed to complying with the intent of the 2022 Guidelines. The AEC Guidelines did not establish a requirement for legal advice confirming compliance with Principle 5 of the 2022 Guidelines to be provided to the Electoral Commissioner prior to campaign certification.

26. The AEC followed an internal review process that involved the Electoral Commissioner providing approval for key campaign development milestones. The Electoral Commissioner signed two certifications for the campaign, which were both published on the AEC’s website in accordance with the AEC Guidelines. The AEC did not publish campaign research reports on its website and did not document consideration of whether publication of the research reports was appropriate and there were inaccuracies in the reporting of campaign expenditure figures in the AEC annual report and subsequent reporting to the Department of Finance. (See paragraphs 4.18 to 4.40)

27. The AEC complied with the intent of Principles 1 to 4 of the 2022 Guidelines and largely complied with Principle 5. Legal advice addressing all legal requirements of Principle 5 was finalised after the campaign had commenced. The AEC had not documented attribution requirements for media partnerships or public relations materials. Details of one procurement were not accurately reported on AusTender. (See paragraphs 4.41 to 4.78)

28. The Your Answer Matters campaign was evaluated to determine its effectiveness. Of the 23 objectives across the five phases of the campaign, 16 were assessed as ‘met’, six were assessed as ‘partly met’ and one was assessed as ‘not met’.

29. The performance of the campaign was monitored against media metrics, including KPIs. The AEC received weekly reporting on the performance of media channels. (See paragraphs 4.79 to 4.85)

Youth Vaping Education (phase one) campaign

30. Health’s Youth Vaping Education (phase one) campaign received government approvals in accordance with the framework requirements applying at the time it was considered.

31. The accountable authority, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care (Secretary of Health and Aged Care), certified that the campaign complied with the five ‘overarching principles’ of the 2022 Guidelines and the certification was published on Health’s website, as required. The Secretary’s certification was informed by a third-party review from the ICC, as required by the 2022 Guidelines, and Health advice on compliance. Health provided the Secretary’s certification to the Minister for Health and Aged Care on 3 May 2024, approximately three months after the campaign commenced, which was not compliant with the 2022 Guidelines.

32. Health complied with publication requirements. Health published the campaign developmental research report on its website. (See paragraphs 5.12 to 5.23)

33. Health complied with Principles 1, 3 and 4 and largely complied with Principles 2 and 5 of the 2022 Guidelines.

34. For Principle 2, Health did not document how campaign imagery reflected a diverse range of Australians. Legal advice provided in support of compliance with Principle 5 addressed the media partnerships component of the campaign but not the influencer component. Seventeen of the 28 media partnership materials did not contain attribution of Australian Government contribution to the materials. Health’s audit trail of procurement decision-making was mostly complete. (See paragraphs 5.24 to 5.74)

35. Health evaluated the Youth Vaping Education (phase one) campaign to determine its effectiveness. The evaluation report consolidated the campaign’s original seven objectives into four objectives. The evaluation found that two objectives were achieved and two objectives were partially achieved.

36. Campaign performance was monitored against media metrics, including KPIs. Health received in-flight monitoring of the campaign’s performance, including a report on the performance of influencers, a mid-campaign report and a final media performance report. (See paragraphs 5.75 to 5.82)

Recommendations

Summary of entity responses

37. The proposed audit report was provided to Finance, AGD, AEC and Health, with an extract being provided to the Independent Communications Committee. The entities’ summary responses are provided below, and their full responses are included at Appendix 1. Improvements observed by the ANAO during the course of this audit are listed in Appendix 2.

Department of Finance

The Department of Finance welcomes the conclusion that the Department has been effective in the whole-of-government administration of the Government’s campaign advertising framework, including Finance’s role in supporting entities, providing secretariat support to the Independent Communications Committee, meeting its requirements for reporting on campaign advertising expenditure by non-corporate Commonwealth entities, and having arrangements in place to manage brand safety risks relating to advertising on social media platforms.

Finance agrees the two recommendations directed to the Department and will take appropriate action to address the matters raised.

Attorney-General’s Department

The Attorney-General’s Department (the department) welcomes the Australian National Audit Office’s (ANAO) report on Australian Government Advertising: November 2021 to November 2024, in particular the findings for the department’s “One Talk at a Time” campaign.

The department agrees with the recommendations and acknowledges the opportunity for administrative improvements in relation to record keeping, attribution of Australian Government involvement in campaign activity and reporting on AusTender.

The department acknowledges the ANAO’s finding that the campaign successfully achieved one objective and “partially achieved” two others. However, the full evaluation of the campaign’s effectiveness is yet to be completed and is expected to conclude in 2025, following the completion of below-the-line activities.

The department is committed to continuous improvement and will use the ANAO’s findings and recommendations to further refine our campaign processes and guidance.

Australian Electoral Commission

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) welcomes the ANAO report.

The AEC notes it is exempt from the Australian Government Guidelines on Information and Advertising Campaigns by non-corporate Commonwealth entities, including exemption from review and approval of AEC campaigns by government. This is due to the need for campaigns on electoral events to be independent of government. Instead, the AEC has its own Guidelines and certification process.

The AEC agrees with the one recommendation relating to improvement of our own Guidelines; and acknowledges the areas for improvement. We have reviewed and are addressing the highlighted administrative processes, noting they do not compromise compliance with our Guidelines.

The AEC remains committed to continuous improvement, and to our ongoing conformance with the intent of the Australian Government Guidelines.

Department of Health and Aged Care

The Department of Health and Aged Care (the department) acknowledges the findings in this report. The department is committed to responding to the opportunities for improvement identified by the Australian National Audit Office.

It is pleasing to note the finding the department was largely compliant with the Australian Government’s campaign advertising framework, including the review, certification and publication requirements.

The department also welcomes the finding the department complied with the requirements of Principles 1, 3 and 4 of the 2022 Australian Government Guidelines on Information and Advertising Campaigns and largely complied with Principles 2 and 5 of the Guidelines. The department also appreciates the report’s recognition the department established arrangements and processes to meet the objectivity requirements of Principle 2 of the Guidelines and mitigate the risks associated with engaging with influencers.

The audit identified two opportunities to improve the documentation of how a diverse range of Australians are reflected in campaign imagery and ensuring campaign materials contain appropriate attribution of the department’s involvement. To address these findings, the department will continue to strengthen its administrative processes when implementing government advertising campaigns.

Background

1. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is the principal revenue collection agency of the Australian Government. Its roles and responsibilities include administering legislation governing tax, superannuation and the Australian Business Register. The ATO’s corporate plan 2024–25¹ outlines a strategic objective to ensure its client experience and interactions are ‘well designed, tailored, fair, transparent.’ This objective includes a core priority to ‘enable trust and confidence through policy, sound law design and interpretation, as well as resolving disputes’.

2. The ATO Charter (the Charter) outlines the ATO’s commitments to its clients and what can be expected in interactions with the ATO.² Under the Charter, the ATO is obligated to be fair and reasonable, provide professional service, provide support and assistance, keep clients’ data and privacy secure, and keep the community informed. This includes working with clients to address concerns and informing them how to make a complaint. The Charter provides ‘we treat all complaints seriously and aim to resolve them quickly and fairly.’

Rationale for undertaking the audit

3. The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Better Practice Complaint Handling Guide states that ‘Australian Public Service agencies and contractors must deliver high quality programs and services to the Australian community in a way that is fair, transparent, timely, respectful and effective’³, and that ‘[g]ood complaint handling will also help meet general principles of good administration, including fairness, transparency, accountability, accessibility and efficiency’.⁴ Between 2020–21 and 2023–24 the number of complaints received by the ATO, including those referred by the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman (IGTO), increased from 24,740 to 49,414.

4. This audit will provide assurance to Parliament of the Australian Taxation Office’s effectiveness in managing complaints, including engaging with complainants, resolving complaints, and the implementation of relevant IGTO recommendations.

Audit objective and criteria

5. The audit objective was to assess the Australian Taxation Office’s effectiveness in managing complaints.

6. To form a conclusion against the objective, the following criteria were adopted.

• Does the ATO have fit-for-purpose arrangements to support the effective handling of complaints?
• Does the ATO report on complaints, effectively review its complaints management framework, and seek to improve processes and service delivery?
• Were agreed recommendations from the Inspector-General of Taxation regarding ATO complaint handling effectively implemented?

Conclusion

7. The ATO’s management of complaints is largely effective. Effectiveness would be improved if the ATO’s analysis of its complaints data also sought to identify the underlying causes of complaints and used this information to improve business processes and complaint handling.

8. The ATO’s complaints management framework is largely aligned with the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Better Practice Complaints Handling Guide. The complaints process is accessible through multiple channels, and complaints are triaged to allocate complaints to resolvers with appropriate experience. The ATO seeks to resolve complaints at first contact. The proportion of complaints resolved at first contact has declined over the last four financial years. The ATO uses timeliness of complaint handling as its indicator for efficiency. The process is reliant on complainant feedback to improve accessibility. The ATO largely applies its framework to handle complaints, though it does not consistently document discussions with complainants to extend complaint due dates which has an impact on the accuracy of performance reporting. The ATO has also not consistently communicated taxpayer review rights to the complainant.

9. The ATO is largely effective at reporting on complaints, collecting complaint data to monitor incoming complaint volumes, categories of complaints, performance against service commitments and performance of key complaint topics. The data is used to generate internal reports based on the needs of individual business areas and bodies that meet to discuss complaint trends. Public reporting through the ATO Annual Report consists of the total number of complaints received and performance against the ATO service commitment targets. The ATO is able to determine which issue categories lead to increases in complaints but does not identify the root causes of these increases. Analysis of cross-product issues indicates that ‘timeliness’ is the largest complaint issue across many business lines, accounting for 56.5 per cent of all complaints from 2020–21 to 2023–24.

10. The ATO is largely effective in using a variety of sources including complaint data to identify business improvements to enhance both the complaint handling system and broader ATO processes and service delivery. It manages these through the Business Intelligence and Improvement register to iteratively improve its processes and service delivery. The ATO could strengthen its Business Intelligence and Improvements framework.

11. The ATO was largely effective in implementing the six IGTO recommendations made between 1 July 2020 and 30 July 2024 concerning the ATO’s management of complaints. The ATO has guidance to assist business lines developing implementation plans for recommendations. Implementation plans for the selected recommendations were largely consistent with this guidance, with the exception that the ATO’s template does not address measures of success or outcomes to be realised as required in ATO guidance. Recommendations are monitored through quarterly reporting to the ATO External Scrutineers Unit (ESU), the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) and the IGTO. Reporting of selected recommendations was completed for all relevant quarters, though there were inconsistencies in reporting regarding revisions to the target implementation date of one recommendation. Three of the selected recommendations were assessed by the ANAO as implemented in full, two were largely implemented, and one was assessed as partly implemented. The ATO completed closure statements with attached evidence of implementation for all selected recommendations, though these were all endorsed after the reported closure dates and the ATO did not establish if the desired outcome of the recommendation had been achieved before closure of the recommendations. Evidence gathering and finalisation of the closure statements continued after the closure date for five of the six recommendations, with two also identifying ongoing work at the time of closure.

Supporting findings

Arrangements to support the effective handling of complaints

12. The ATO’s complaints management framework is largely aligned with the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Better Practice Complaint Handling Guide. Complaints are received, are categorised, and are sent to the relevant Business Service Line if they cannot be resolved at first point of contact. Resolution is through prioritisation of calls to the complaints hotline, the use of First Contact Resolution, and via complaint categorisation at the point of receipt. The ATO approach to determining efficiency focuses on timeliness and does not consider inputs and outputs. (See paragraphs 2.3 to 2.48)

13. The process to make a complaint to the ATO is clearly articulated on its website, and guidance documents provided to staff to explain the complaints process are clear. The complaints process is accessed primarily through online web form and telephone, and is largely compliant with the BPG. The ATO does not specifically survey complainants on the ATO’s complaint management process, however complainants who have had an identity-verified interaction with the ATO were eligible to be randomly sampled for the ATO’s broader monthly Client Experience Survey. The information on complaints obtained through this survey does not support meaningful analysis. The ATO relies on complainant feedback to identify and address accessibility issues, and does not proactively monitor and assess potential accessibility barriers. The ATO implements changes when issues are brought to its attention through this channel. (See paragraphs 2.49 to 2.61)

14. The ATO uses notes, attachments and templates in the Siebel work management system to record actions taken while resolving a complaint. The complaint capture template was consistently completed by ATO staff. The issues template was largely completed in line with ATO guidelines and use of this template increased from 2020–21 to 2023–24. Notes and attachments recorded in Siebel and analysed by the ANAO indicate the ATO actions complaints in accordance with its guidance. Regular ongoing contact was not consistently maintained with complainants in 2022–23 and 2023–24, and some complainants were not advised of their review rights when a complaint was closed. The ATO did not have a discussion with complainants before extending due dates in the majority of complaint cases. The extended due dates exceed the ATO’s service commitment to resolve complaints within 15 business days. (See paragraphs 2.62 to 2.86)

Reporting, process improvement, and review

15. The ATO generates internal reports based on the needs of individual business areas and bodies that meet to discuss complaints. Public reporting through the ATO Annual Report consists of the total number of complaints received and performance against the ATO service commitment targets. The ATO is able to determine which issue categories have led to increases in complaints, but does not identify the root causes of these increases. Analysis of cross-product issues indicates that ‘timeliness’ is the largest complaint issue across many business lines, accounting for 56.5 per cent of complaints from 2020–21 to 2023–24. (See paragraphs 3.2 to paragraph 3.42)

16. The ATO uses a variety of sources including complaint data to identify opportunities to improve its complaints management framework. The ATO manages changes to its complaints management framework manually through the Business Intelligence and Improvement register. The ATO does not undertake regular evaluation of its complaint handing processes. (See paragraphs 3.43 to 3.46)

17. The complaint data collected by the ATO is used to monitor incoming complaint volumes and categories, performance against service commitments and performance of key complaint topics. The ATO also improves non-complaint handling processes and service delivery through the Business Intelligence and Improvement register. There is an opportunity for the ATO to strengthen the Business Intelligence and Improvements framework. (See paragraphs 3.47 to 3.63)

Implementation of Inspector-General of Taxation recommendations regarding complaint handling

18. The ATO has guidance for business lines developing implementation plans to address recommendations from the Inspector-General of Taxation and Taxation Ombudsman (IGTO). The ATO External Scrutineers Unit coordinates this process. Implementation plans were developed for all selected recommendations and largely reflect ATO requirements. Implementation plans are not provided to the IGTO for feedback as required and the implementation plan template does not address measures of success or outcomes to be realised as required in ATO guidance. (See paragraphs 4.3 to 4.21)

19. The implementation of recommendations from the IGTO is primarily monitored through quarterly reporting. The ATO’s External Scrutineers Unit sources updates from Business Service Lines on the implementation of recommendations to produce quarterly reporting. These updates were often returned to ESU after their due date and lacked evidence of action taken. The progress of selected recommendations was reported to the IGTO and ATO Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) in all relevant quarters. The ATO classified four of the six closed recommendations as implemented by their original target date. There are inconsistencies in the reporting of revisions to the target implementation date of one recommendation to the ARC. These revisions were made after the previous target date had passed. (See paragraphs 4.22 to 4.49)

20. Three of the six closed recommendations were assessed by the ANAO as implemented in full, two were largely implemented, and one was assessed as partly implemented. The ATO completed all required closure statements, although endorsement was provided after the closure date for all recommendations, and evidence attached was not sufficient to provide assurance of implementation status without seeking documentation from additional sources. Evidence gathering and finalisation of the closure statements continued after the closure date for five recommendations, with two also identifying ongoing work. The ATO did not establish if the desired outcome of the recommendation had been achieved before closure of the recommendations. (See paragraphs 4.50 to 4.80)

Recommendations

Summary of entity response

21. The proposed audit report was provided to the ATO. The ATO’s summary response is reproduced below and its full response is at Appendix 1. Improvements observed by the ANAO during the course of this audit are listed in Appendix 2.

The Australian Taxation Office (the ATO) welcomes the ANAO’s report and finding that the ATO is largely effective in managing complaints.

Whilst complaints represent a very small portion of our interactions with taxpayers, we understand the importance of complaints in helping us to continue to improve their experience.

We are proud of the work we do to deliver for the Australian community in a manner that meets Government and community expectations. We are pleased to see the ANAO has found the ATO has developed largely effective arrangements to handle complaints and that we monitor, report and process improvements effectively. We remain committed to understanding the systemic issues that may be driving trends through complaints as it enables us to continually improve how we operate.

The ATO agrees with the four recommendations in the report. Implementation of the recommendations and opportunities for improvement identified by the ANAO will help us further strengthen our complaints processes, and ensure we continue to effectively meet our commitments to taxpayers and the Australian Government.

Background

1. On 5 August 2017, the Minister for Health and Aged Care announced a review of Australia’s sport integrity arrangements. The Report of the Review of Australia’s Sport Integrity Arrangements (the Wood Review) was presented to the government in March 2018 and made 52 recommendations, including the establishment of a national sports integrity commission.¹ In its February 2019 response to the Wood Review², the Australian Government agreed, agreed in part, agreed in principle or noted all recommendations. Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) was established on 1 July 2020 by the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 (SIA Act).

2. The object of the SIA Act is to establish SIA to prevent and address threats to sports integrity and to coordinate a national approach to matters relating to sports integrity in Australia. A National Anti-Doping Scheme is required under section 3 of the SIA Act and is set out in Schedule 1 of the Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020 (SIA Regulations). The SIA Regulations outline the powers and functions of the SIA Chief Executive Officer, which include having the role and responsibility of a ‘national anti-doping organisation’ for Australia under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Anti-Doping Convention and the World Anti-Doping Code.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

3. In its response to the Wood Review, the Australian Government committed to ‘comprehensively protecting the integrity of Australian sport for the benefit of the entire Australian community’ and to establishing a national sports integrity commission (SIA). The government also noted the importance of effective anti-doping measures to protect the integrity of Australian sport.

4. The audit provides assurance to the Parliament as to whether SIA has established effective governance arrangements for anti-doping and is effectively managing the National Anti-Doping Scheme.

Audit objective and criteria

5. The purpose of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Sport Integrity Australia’s management of the National Anti-doping Scheme.

6. To form a conclusion against the objective, the following high-level criteria were adopted:

• Has Sport Integrity Australia established fit-for-purpose governance arrangements?
• Has Sport Integrity Australia established effective arrangements to prevent and detect anti-doping rule violations?
• Has Sport Integrity Australia established effective arrangements to investigate and respond to possible anti-doping rule violations?

7. The period covered by the audit is 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024. Anti-doping matters prior to the establishment of Sport Integrity Australia on 1 July 2020 are not within the scope of this audit.

Conclusion

8. Sport Integrity Australia’s management of the National Anti-Doping Scheme is partly effective. SIA has adopted a different approach to anti-doping regulation, depending on how anti-doping samples and testing are paid for. Regulatory responsibilities are more effectively carried out for sports that receive government funded anti-doping testing. For sports where testing costs are partially recovered from the sport, regulation is not demonstrably risk-based and data driven — a key principle of good regulation. There are deficiencies in anti-doping investigation practices.

9. SIA’s governance arrangements for the National Anti-Doping Scheme are partly fit for purpose. There are largely fit-for-purpose oversight and assurance arrangements. Risk management, including for regulatory capture risks, is not fit for purpose.

10. SIA’s arrangements for preventing and detecting doping are largely effective for sports that have mainly government funded anti-doping sample collection arrangements, and partly effective for the major professional sports that have mainly ‘user pays’ anti-doping sample collection arrangements, due to the way SIA has chosen to administer ‘user pays’ arrangements.

• There is a fit-for-purpose national anti-doping framework, which is supported by a national anti-doping policy that is adopted by 87 national sporting organisations. Another three national sporting organisations have an SIA-approved anti-doping policy.
• SIA has effective arrangements to prevent anti-doping rule violations through anti-doping education plans that are implemented and evaluated.
• For sports that have mainly government funded testing arrangements, test distribution planning is generally risk-based. Transparency could be enhanced through more comprehensive documentation of planning methodology and record keeping.
• For the six major sports that have mainly user pays testing arrangements, test distribution planning is not demonstrably risk-based. The number and distribution of tests are negotiated with national sporting organisations under a service agreement. This is not consistent with World Anti-Doping Code principles or SIA’s responsibilities as a regulator of these sports.

11. SIA’s arrangements to investigate and respond to anti-doping rule violations are partly effective. The procedural framework for investigations is partly fit for purpose, including processes related to quality assurance. There were irregularities in the triage and conduct of 38 investigations commenced in the three years to 30 June 2024, when compared to existing procedures. Investigations did not consistently meet timeliness targets. SIA’s actions in response to proven anti-doping violations were appropriate.

Supporting findings

Governance arrangements

12. SIA has responded to the Minister for Sport’s statement of expectations with an appropriate statement of intent. There are management arrangements and governance bodies that give consideration to anti-doping matters. These include advisory bodies that have been established in accordance with the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020. Governance bodies operate in accordance with legislative requirements or terms of reference, except for the declaration of interests on two key advisory bodies. SIA’s public performance reporting includes measures related to anti-doping. There is no performance reporting specifically related to anti-doping testing and investigations — a key regulatory function. There is no measure that goes to the effectiveness or efficiency of SIA’s anti-doping activities. Performance reporting on anti-doping in 2023–24 was not fully accurate. SIA reports integrity and anti-doping matters of significance to the Minister for Sport. (see paragraphs 2.2 to 2.20)

13. Sport Integrity Australia established a risk management policy in 2021, which was updated in 2023. Risk appetite statements provided in different documents are inconsistent. There is an enterprise risk register, which was last updated in November 2021. Operational risk registers for specific business areas or activities, including for anti-doping, are not maintained. SIA undertook a review of its risk management framework in 2024, which concluded that the risk management framework required ‘significant’ work to comply with the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy. SIA commenced a body of work to improve SIA’s risk management framework. There is a largely fit-for-purpose policy framework for regulatory capture risks, including risks arising from conflicts of interest; external employment; gifts, benefits and hospitality; and sports betting. The policies are poorly implemented. (see paragraphs 2.21 to 2.43)

Anti-doping prevention and detection

14. The Sport Integrity Australia Regulations 2020 establish the SIA CEO’s functions and powers in relation to anti-doping, which include sample collection and results management for ‘sporting administration bodies’, defined as ‘national sporting organisations for Australia’. SIA has established an Australian National Anti-Doping Policy (NAD Policy) that aligns with the World Anti-Doping Code and which, as of September 2024 had been adopted by 98 sporting organisations in Australia, including 87 national sporting organisations for Australia. Anti-doping policies for the remaining three national sporting organisations that have adopted alternative policies were not approved by SIA in a timely way using documented criteria.

15. SIA’s annual anti-doping activities are supported by approximately 300 full-time equivalent (FTE) and casual employees. Budgeted average staffing levels increased by six per cent for FTE staff and 17 per cent for casual staff between 2022–23 and 2024–25. The total number of anti-doping samples collected by SIA declined by 34 per cent between 2010–11 and 2022–23.

16. SIA provides anti-doping sample collection and analysis under two general funding models: government-funded and user pays. User pays arrangements involve partial cost recovery, an approach which was approved by government in March 2024. Six professional sports (Australian football, cricket, football (soccer), rugby league, rugby union and basketball) have mainly user pays arrangements. There are no documented criteria for when to apply which funding model, however SIA has advised that it depends in part on the sporting organisation’s ability to pay for its own anti-doping testing.

17. The average cost of testing increased in the five years to 2022–23 and decreased in 2023–24. SIA has assessed the value-for-money of its laboratory testing arrangements. (see paragraphs 3.7 to 3.24)

18. SIA has developed national anti-doping education plans in each year between 2021–22 and 2023–24, as required by the World Anti-Doping (WAD) Code and SIA Regulations. SIA’s 2023–24 national education plan is consistent with requirements of the WAD Code. Sport specific education plans were developed for all sampled sports except one in 2023–24, following failure to develop sport-specific education plans for one sampled government funded sport and most sampled user pays sports in 2021–22 and 2022–23. SIA has fit for purpose arrangements to evaluate the effectiveness of the national education plan. Evaluations have found that most deliverables and outcomes relating to the national education plan were met. SIA has evaluated sport-specific education plans. (see paragraphs 3.25 to 3.42)

19. SIA undertakes an annual anti-doping test distribution planning process that is consistent with the World Anti-Doping (WAD) Code for sports with mainly government funded testing arrangements. Evaluation of previous years’ plans (one component of the WAD Code requirements) to inform improvements to current year planning is not supported by a clear methodology and could be better documented. SIA alters (moderates) the results of the risk-based test planning process using an undocumented methodology.

20. SIA’s test distribution planning for sports with mainly user pays testing arrangements is deficient in terms of systematic risk analysis informing the total number and distribution of planned tests. The total number and distribution of tests are negotiated with national sporting organisations representing user pays sports under a service agreement. Testing arrangements for user pays sports do not fully cover the off-season and pre-season.

21. In a sample of 25 government funded and user pays sports/disciplines, SIA’s testing activities for 2023–24 were mostly consistent with its planned test distribution planning. The minimum levels of analysis required under the WAD Code were achieved for all but one government funded and one user pays sport. (see paragraphs 3.43 to 3.85)

Anti-doping investigations and response

22. SIA established an investigations manual in 2020, which as of September 2024 had not been updated to align with the Australian Government Investigations Standard 2022. Elements of AGIS requirements related to information and evidence management, investigative personnel and investigative practices could be better reflected in SIA’s framework for conducting investigations. Quality assurance processes for investigations have largely not been established.

23. Between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024, 144 anti-doping rule violation cases were recorded in SIA’s case management system, and 38 proceeded to an investigation or ‘administrative’ treatment. There is a lack of documented procedures for a type of case (non-analytical findings) and treatment of these cases was inconsistent.

24. Six of 38 investigations commenced between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 lacked investigation plans, with no documented reason for five. SIA does not have a procedure for the preparation and service of disclosure notices to athletes, and disclosure notice practices were inconsistent. SIA did not follow up using established mechanisms on athlete non-compliance with disclosure notices. A brief of evidence adjudication was appropriately prepared for 19 of 26 investigations involving a brief of evidence. Of the 38 investigations commenced since 1 July 2021, 21 were finalised by 30 June 2024 (15 resulting in a sanction). SIA states that it prepares closure reports only for matters where the decision is ‘no further action’. Three of five investigations resulting in ‘no further action’ had a closure report. Closed investigations did not meet timeliness benchmarks. (see paragraphs 4.2 to 4.54)

25. Anti-doping rule violation sanctions imposed by SIA between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 were largely consistent with WADA requirements. (see paragraphs 4.55 to 4.62)

Recommendations

Summary of entity response

26. The proposed audit report was provided to SIA. SIA’s summary response is reproduced below. The full response from SIA is at Appendix 1. Improvements observed by the ANAO during the course of this audit are listed at Appendix 2.

Sport Integrity Australia welcomes the findings in the ANAO audit report on Sport Integrity Australia’s Management of the National Anti-Doping Scheme and agrees with the recommendations.

These recommendations will further contribute to our continuous improvement along with our obligations to implement and enforce rules and policies relating to anti-doping in Australian sport.

The National Anti-Doping Scheme provides Australia with the legislative basis to implement obligations under the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, and in turn, the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code). The Code, and its associated mandatory International Standards, create an important, but complex set of global expectations for all National Anti-Doping Organisations.

The World Anti-Doping Agency through its most recent Code Compliance process (2022–2023) found Sport Integrity Australia to be fully compliant with all aspects of the Code. Indeed, this process highlighted the capabilities of Sport Integrity Australia far exceed many other national anti-doping agencies.

The ANAO recommendations (noting the recommendations are limited to a small section of just one of the five relevant International Standards), are valuable as we look to continually improve our program. To this end, we have already begun taking steps to implement all recommendations.