Have Recent Financial Reforms Improved Financial Accountability in the Australian Commonwealth Public Sector?

Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal, Aug 2007 by Bowrey, Graham

Senior Public Servant-I am not actually allowed to provide daily running cost for the Aurora Australis under our charter, but the general range of costs-

Senator (Non-government)-That is under the charter with P&O, is it?

Senior Public Servant -Yes. The general range of costs-

Senator (Non-government)-Why is that?

Senior Public Servant -It is a commercial-in-confidence arrangement.

Senator (Non-government)-Why?

Senior Public Servant -It has been that way for many years.

Senator (Non-government)-Yes, but why is it? It is public money that is being expended there, isn't it?

Senior Public Servant -It is commercial in confidence.

Senator (Non-government)-Why is it commercial in confidence? It is a straight arrangement with a shipping company.

Government Minister-We put it up for tender on a regular basis, so there is commercial stress on them. They would want to keep that-but you know what the total running costs of the program are, so it is in terms of parliamentary accountability.

Senator (Non-government)-Extraordinary.

However at the beginning of each estimates hearing the Chair of the committee reads out the prescribed directions for the hearing which includes:

The Senate, by resolution in 1999, endorsed the following test of relevance of questions at estimates hearings. It reads: Any questions going to the operations or financial positions of the departments and agencies which are seeking funds in the estimates are relevant questions for the purpose of estimates hearings. I remind officers that the Senate has resolved that there are no areas in connection with the expenditure of public funds where any person has discretion to withhold details or explanations from the parliament or its committees, unless the parliament has expressly provided otherwise.

Unfortunately the Chair of the committee is also a member of the government so like the example provided above questions outside the scope of the committee often go through relatively unchecked unless a non-government senator pursues the matter.

Accountability is a complex notion and it is not one which can be adequately addressed through one definition, however it is generally accepted, as found in Funnell and Cooper's summary, that accountability implies a relationship of authority, based on the idea that those who are accountable are in some sense subordinate to those to whom they must give account (Mulgan, 1997, p. 27). However, it is questionable whether parliament and government are subordinate to the Australian electorate, especially because parliament developed and approved the implementation of the current accountability processes - "in the public sector, the public accountability process is largely determined by legislation and the parliamentary system" (Cameron, 2004, p. 59). Pat Barrett (2003), a former auditor-general, explained that accountability in the public sector implies conformity with a system of administrative processes designed to designate authority for administrative actions, and simultaneously provide a framework for reporting and checking on actions taken.