Audit commissions - a review

Audit commissions have heralded wide ranging changes, many now regarded as accepted good public sector management practices. Corporatisation of government owned business enterprises; accrual accounting; improved delivery arrangements; competitive tendering; improved budgetary processes; more flexible public service workplace arrangements and rationalisation of administrative arrangements are good examples of their achievements. They helped establish the budget honesty arrangements evident in the current election and adopted around Australia. Audit commissions have contributed to updating public sector organisational architecture across different jurisdictions, highlighting the number of agencies, poor reporting processes and contradictory governance arrangements.

It is also true they have made controversial recommendations reflecting a more economic rationalist agenda than some prefer on issues like purchaser-provider splits, privatisation, outsourcing, public service cuts and balanced budgets. Consequently, audit commissions have appeared to provide the rationale for cuts that a new government was already intent on making which some have seen as excessive and driven more by ideology than policy necessity – even when the cuts preceded commission reports as with the Kennett Government in 1992 and in Queensland in 2012.

Importantly, audit commissions do not always get their way. The Court Western Australian Government quietly parked many of its commission's proposals in the "too hard" basket. So too, did the Howard Government with recommendations of its 1996 National Audit Commission to hand over large areas of policy to the states to control and administer. So far, the Newman LNP Government has eschewed its commission's proposals about privatisation until they tested at a future election for want of a mandate.

Conclusions

Commission of audit have served legitimate roles. They have identified priorities among a new government's goals, provided policy coherence to election promises and promoted policy innovation lacking in tired previous administrations.

Nevertheless, audit commissions have not been without their critics who see them as ideologically driven bodies justifying an incoming government's desires that have questionable methodologies and say nothing new (see Quiggin 2012 for a critique of the Newman Government's Queensland Audit Commission). And of course the question of whether cuts were needed at particular times in particular jurisdictions has also been raised as have their methodologies (Hayward 1999; Hayward 2013). Others have also questioned whether audit commissions have had any impact as they were often overtaken by events and other pressing policy issues (Wanna et al 2000 regarding the Howard Government's commission). These are all legitimate questions and concerns. That some audit commission reports have not been released, as was the case with the Victorian Government's 2011 commission, have also not helped their cause.

The Abbott Government's National Commission of Audit has been generally well received by most commentators. However, some are less enthusiastic. Ultimately, the success of the latest audit commission will depend on the perceived independence of its membership, the rigorousness and transparency of its methodology and most importantly, the extent that its recommendations are implemented by the government.