I’m pleased to be chairing a discussion panel at Australasia’s leading internal audit conference on leading practice and models for risk management, internal audit and audit committees in the public sector.

Given the major reforms in Queensland and New South Wales in the past 18 months, we will  have a focus on their changes, which are both interesting in their own right.  Queensland has moved to a principles-based approach in a range of respects, while New South Wales is implementing what I believe to be one of the most comprehensive and best thought through approaches to these matters anywhere in the world.  Both will be watched with great interest by other jurisdictions.

On the panel with me will be policy makers NSW and Queensland as well as practitioners at the audit committee and chief auditor level in both states who will be sharing their experiences and viewpoints as they implement the new policy frameworks of approach.  We’ll also be drawing comparisons from the IIA’s policy agenda which was launched by Lindsay Tanner earlier this year as well as canvassing the different jurisdictions in the room (Commonwealth, and state and local government from each state and territory in Australia, New Zealand and abroad).

Building on last year’s debate, this session will be of great interest for those charged with leading governance within government departments and organisations, or charged with policy setting — both to get a sense of where we could / should be going, as well as hearing from those who are already doing it and some of the lessons learned from these.

I’ve promised to make the session “more Jennie Brockie than Tony Jones”  so please pose a question during the session (Tuesday May 11 from 11:15am – sessions 6D & 7D) or come and say hello over the course of the ACIIA/SOPAC Conference.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Todd

Useful document from the NSW Auditor General.

In the course of my work with various clients and committees, the nature of internal audit opinions continues to be a misunderstood area. Even with carefully defined scopes, roles and responsibilities there appears to be a regular expectation gap between the level of assurance given by internal audit teams, and that understood by those relying on them.

Disclaimers and caveats in audit reports and engagement letters are often brushed over, until something goes wrong, and then can cause great tension between those providing the internal audit assurance, and those relying on their work. Rightly or wrongly, the classic “where were the auditors” line is begging to be pulled out, and is often the first response.

In my experience, issues usually arise as a result of expectations gaps around the nature of audit opinions rather than negligence, but this takes time to disentangle after the fact. The better option of course, is to get this squared away up front.

As part of my work in helping the market to get more sophisticated about the nature and level of assurance commissioned and provided, I’ll be leading an on-line masterclass for the Institute of Internal Auditors in Australia on Tuesday May 4 from 1:00pm AEST.

Through structured discussion and practical exercises, this course will take participants through a framework for providing internal audit opinions, including being clear on when to use them, how to use them, legal implications, how to navigate overlaps between different assurance standards and frameworks and an appreciation of the IIA’s official guidance in this area.

While this is targeted towards internal auditors in particular, this course will also be relevant for anyone who regularly relies on internal audit reports such as the senior finance team, C-Suite and audit committee members.

For more information and registration, please got to the Institute of Internal Auditors’ Australian website.