The state’s Auditor-General Rod Whitehead on Tuesday released an analysis of transactions by agency staff in 2017 and found 19 of the tested 522 transactions breached protocol – or 3.6 per cent of those transactions analysed.

Mr Whitehead said he expected breaches to be less than 1 per cent.

He said 10 of the transactions, worth $9377, lacked appropriate documentation to support the purchases.

Mr Whitehead said another 32 transactions, worth $44,309, were not made by the cardholder, rather the staff member.

“We expected to see strong compliance from senior agency staff and this is largely what we found,” he said.

“Overall, there was no evidence of serious or systemic misuse of public funds or any potentially fraudulent transactions that warranted further investigation.”

A credit card was used on four occasions to purchase fuel, which is against the rules, on one occasion to pay a fine, and once by a cardholder for entertainment expenses without proper authorisation.

More than half of the overall credit card purchases were for travel including flight, hotel and vehicle expenses.

Mr Whitehead recommended that government agencies implement a rule which prohibited credit-card use by people other than the cardholder and that agencies consider measures like putting expense tracking applications on smartphones to improve collection of documentation to support purchases.

Treasury secretary Tony Farrell said the department would make it a mandatory requirement for cardholders to only be permitted to use credit cards.

Mr Whitehead also released a report on the State Growth Department’s administration of two grant programs: the Regional Tourism Infrastructure and Innovation Fund and the Regional Revival Fund Grant Program.

He said while the design of both programs was well-grounded, there was inconsistency between application assessments and the funding decisions which were eventually made.

The audit found progress reports from grant recipients were not always sufficiently detailed and some were unable to confirm whether the money had been spent on the approved purpose.

In other circumstances, a particular project’s outcomes were not consistent with the expected outcomes.