Search results

There is a growing loss of public confidence in governments worldwide, reinforced by the global financial crisis, but also reflecting some disturbing concerns about democracy. This article examines Australia's recent reforms aimed at improving performance and accountability which focus on managing the risks involved in achieving the required outcomes. One risk might be that the electorate is simply not interested—because citizens are not convinced that the government is committed and/or capable of delivering the stated outcomes. The challenge for governments is to involve all interested parties to achieve and maintain credibility in any reforms. The issue is not only what needs to be done, but how to do it. The search for the 'Holy Grail' of improved public sector performance and accountability continues.

There is a growing loss of public confidence in governments worldwide, reinforced by the global financial crisis, but also reflecting some disturbing concerns about democracy. This article examines Australia's recent reforms aimed at improving performance and accountability which focus on managing the risks involved in achieving the required outcomes. One risk might be that the electorate is simply not interested—because citizens are not convinced that the government is committed and/or capable of delivering the stated outcomes. The challenge for governments is to involve all interested parties to achieve and maintain credibility in any reforms. The issue is not only what needs to be done, but how to do it. The search for the 'Holy Grail' of improved public sector performance and accountability continues.

Public audit cannot resolve historically low levels of trust in politicians, their parties or even democracy itself. But it can address vital issues of financial performance and value for money

It has taken almost 15 years for an Australian government to again proceed with major financial reform. Earlier this year, the then minister for finance when introducing new legislation implementing the reforms under one Act (the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013) noted that the system was 'not broken' but that it 'creaks at times'. That Act represents about one half of the proposed reforms but is central to their success. One of the more interesting aspects of the reforms is that they were developed in an open process with the involvement of both public and private sector advisers over a three-year period and oversight by the Department of Finance, similar to the approach taken with the ground-breaking public service reforms in Australia in the 1990s. The focus is largely on financial reform as part of good governance, stressing performance and accountability, but also giving prominence to risk management and the associated notion of 'earned autonomy' and less 'red tape'. In addition, attention is given to the need to establish a governance framework that recognizes the increasing co-operation and collaboration across agencies and entities, across governments at all levels and across sectors of the economy. We continue to learn from research in both the UK and Canada in particular, recognizing both the similarities and differences between the public and private sectors.

It has taken almost 15 years for an Australian government to again proceed with major financial reform. Earlier this year, the then minister for finance when introducing new legislation implementing the reforms under one Act (the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013) noted that the system was 'not broken' but that it 'creaks at times'. That Act represents about one half of the proposed reforms but is central to their success. One of the more interesting aspects of the reforms is that they were developed in an open process with the involvement of both public and private sector advisers over a three-year period and oversight by the Department of Finance, similar to the approach taken with the ground-breaking public service reforms in Australia in the 1990s. The focus is largely on financial reform as part of good governance, stressing performance and accountability, but also giving prominence to risk management and the associated notion of 'earned autonomy' and less 'red tape'. In addition, attention is given to the need to establish a governance framework that recognizes the increasing co-operation and collaboration across agencies and entities, across governments at all levels and across sectors of the economy. We continue to learn from research in both the UK and Canada in particular, recognizing both the similarities and differences between the public and private sectors.

The growth of performance auditing in Australia (and in many other countries) has led to a range of seemingly conflicting observations about their contribution to better public administration, which basically reflect differing political and public expectations of such audits. Confusion also revolves around the question of just what value is being assessed, reflecting differing perceptions of assurance and performance and of the coverage of administrative and policy effectiveness. A better understanding of what needs to be achieved by those responsible and acceptance of accountability for the required results would improve confidence in public administration and in the value that it delivers.

The audit expectations gap has received considerable publicity world-wide, particularly in the recent global financial crisis. Public sector auditing is not exempt in this respect, and is no more so than in the area of performance auditing. How much do audit reports really tell us about the value delivered by government programmes? Is there sufficiently shared understanding and perceptions of performance auditing and the value it provides?

Public audit cannot resolve historically low levels of trust in politicians, their parties or even democracy itself. But it can address vital issues of financial performance and value for money

The audit expectations gap has received considerable publicity world-wide, particularly in the recent global financial crisis. Public sector auditing is not exempt in this respect, and is no more so than in the area of performance auditing. How much do audit reports really tell us about the value delivered by government programmes? Is there sufficiently shared understanding and perceptions of performance auditing and the value it provides?

The growth of performance auditing in Australia (and in many other countries) has led to a range of seemingly conflicting observations about their contribution to better public administration, which basically reflect differing political and public expectations of such audits. Confusion also revolves around the question of just what value is being assessed, reflecting differing perceptions of assurance and performance and of the coverage of administrative and policy effectiveness. A better understanding of what needs to be achieved by those responsible and acceptance of accountability for the required results would improve confidence in public administration and in the value that it delivers.