New development: Reviews of public sector performance—groundhog day?

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to canvass, and comment on, the main features of the recently completed Review of Governance, Performance and Accountability legislation/framework at the national level of government in Australia. Most of the Report’s 52 recommendations are procedural and will only be discussed when they may be of particular relevance in a broader context. The review reported on 4 September 2018. It continues the long line of reform reports conducted over the last 30 to 40 years. However, before the review was even completed, the Australian government announced (on 4 May 2018) another wide-ranging Independent Review of the Australian Public Service (APS), with a reference group of national and international experts having ‘diverse public and private sector experience’. Some suggested that the latter review should encompass the findings and recommendations of the former and be considered together, particularly as the announced chair was also a member of the earlier two-person review team. While no one would question the need for continuous learning, the main issue is about effective implementation of agreed recommendations that would improve performance and promote greater public confidence and trust in government.

IMPACT

The September review endorses the approaches taken over the last five years to the framework’s successful operation and application but also provides recommendations that should enhance their effectiveness. As such, it will provide a supportive role for the current Review of the Australian Public Service (APS). There is a marked emphasis on the importance of the developments and application of IT and communication and co-operation in programme implementation, including relationships with the programme recipients, notably in the delivery of services, and with the general public. Digital reporting would minimize timing concerns and provide a better basis for access and comparative assessments of entity reporting. The enhanced roles recommended for both parliamentary committees and the ANAO would provide greater discipline for the effective implementation of any accepted recommendations. Any concerns about ‘practicability’ should be replaced by the need for ‘workability’ and commitment. In particular, the recommendation for senate estimates committees to be given the opportunity to refer issues arising out of their examination of parliamentary budget statements (including programme performance information/outcomes) to the JCPAA for inquiry and report is also another clear signal and endorsement of parliament’s resolve to ensure availability of meaningful performance (results) information. As such, it should make a marked contribution to restoring higher levels of trust and confidence in government and in the public service.

KEYWORDS:

• Accountability
• collaboration/co-operation
• evaluation
• governance
• innovation
• technology and responsiveness
• leadership
• performance
• public trust and confidence
• risks

ORCID

Pat Barrett http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7086-2827