Auditing process

A preliminary assessment is generally confidential and establishes if further review is necessary.

A preliminary assessment is conducted where use of work expense(s) (for example, identified through direct contact, third party reporting or media) indicates a matter requires review.

Preliminary assessments review information held or accessible by IPEA to determine the threshold question of:

• Has a parliamentary business resource been used?

If the answer is ues, an assurance review follows.

Potential pathways:

1. No further action
2. Referral to more appropriate agency
3. Assurance review

An assurance review determines if there has been a misuse of a parliamentary business resource.

IPEA assesses the use of the parliamentary business resource against the legislative framework to determine:

• Was there misuse?

If the answer is yes, IPEA considers if an audit, referral or administrative action is appropriate.

An audit is considered when:

• There is evidence for, or allegations of, systemic or substantial misuse
• IPEA’s statutory information-gathering powers may be required to obtain all the required information
• There may be an educative benefit in publishing IPEA’s findings.

Referral to the AFP is considered when there is evidence of serious fraud or other criminal conduct.

Potential pathways:

1. No further action
2. Administrative remedial action, including penalty
3. An IPEA initiated ruling or audit
4. Referral to the AFP

An audit may commence for two main reasons:

1. As the outcome of an assurance review
2. As a systematic and comprehensive examination of the use of a specific category of a parliamentary business resource against the legislative framework, potentially by all parliamentarians and/or MOP(S) Act employees.

Where an audit results from an assurance review, the Macquarie Dictionary definitions of these terms are considered:

• Substantial: “of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size etc.”
• Systemic: “affecting an organisation, network … etc as a whole”

Where an educational purpose or benefit is identified, part or all of the audit may be published. The decision to publish is made on a case‑by‑case basis.

Potential pathways:

1. No further action
2. Administrative remedial action, including penalty
3. An IPEA initiated ruling or audit
4. Referral to the AFP

Post payment checks are ongoing systematic testing of expense use through regular sampling of transactions. This covers a range of expenses such as:

• business class travel
• short term self-drive hire cars
• accommodation receipts.

IPEA may refer a matter to the NACC at any point during the assessment, review, or audit phases where it identifies compelling prima facie evidence of serious or systemic corrupt conduct.

IPEA may refer a matter to the AFP at any point during the assessment, review or audit process, where compelling prima facie evidence of fraud or other criminal conduct is identified.

Rulings are made and finalised by the Members, including where they are, requested by a parliamentarian, recommended by an assurance review or audit.