MONASH CONFERENCE: TOWARD PUBLIC VALUE? MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYMENT FOR OUTCOMES

Presentation to
Public Accountability: Effectiveness, Equity, Ethics

By Wayne Cameron,
Auditor-General of Victoria

25 November 2003

Public accountability – what is it?

Accountability is an important element of good governance. It involves being answerable for decisions or actions, often to prevent the misuse of power and other forms of misappropriate behaviour.

The notion of accountability can be divided into a number of components, namely:

• giving an explanation to stakeholders

• providing further information where required

• reviewing, and if necessary revising, systems or practices to meet the expectations of stakeholders

• granting redress or imposing sanctions.¹

Access to information is an essential characteristic of accountability – virtually all accountability relies on the availability of relevant and timely information – however information is of little value unless it can lead ultimately to the rectification of any issues highlighted, or improved performance. It can, and does, fulfil an important stewardship function as well.

The question about accountability is fundamentally about who is accountable to whom for what. In the public sector, the public accountability process is largely determined by legislation and the parliamentary system.

Parliament (the legislature) provides the authority for the acquisition and use of resources for the public sector. In most cases this is done through the collection of taxes and the appropriation of those taxes to executive government through the budgetary process. Thus executive government is accountable to parliament for the management and use of resources provided to it by parliament. Parliament, through its representative members, is responsible to the public, who judge the performance of the government and are able to exercise their influence via voting rights. Public servants serve the government, and are accountable to ministers. In a broader sense they also have an obligation of accountability to Parliament and the public for their actions.

The following diagram provides an overview of the public sector accountability process.²

CHART 1: PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS

Public accountability is an important characteristic of modern democratic government. Our system of government, the ‘Westminster’ system, requires that ministers act in the ‘public interest’. This requirement demands a heightened level of public accountability, transparency and probity.

Public accountability requires openness of account giving, whereby those in power are held accountable in public for their acts and omissions, decisions, policies and expenditures. In this manner, it is the complement of sound public management.

Departments and officials are potentially accountable to the public for all aspects of their performance, including not only their final actions and decisions but also the processes by which these actions and decisions were made. This accountability is implemented through a range of different institutional mechanisms.³

For ministers and departmental officials, the key channel of accountability remains the chain of responsibility, upwards through the departmental hierarchy to the secretary and the minister and, via the minister, to parliament and the public. This central channel is supplemented by a number of other accountability mechanisms, including the accountability of public servants to respond to enquiries by parliamentary committees, to those agencies, which through their statutory roles reinforce public accountability such as the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, tribunals and the courts, as well as freedom of information legislation.

These institutions, along with the power of public debate in parliament, questions asked by members of parliament and the role of the media reinforce the accountability processes in our parliamentary system of democracy. Although many of these bodies do not have the power to impose remedies or sanctions, they can require ministers and officials to provide all required information and explanations. The results of which are, in most cases, unless on rare occasions that the public interest would be placed at risk, are made public.

Statutory authorities and their individual members are subject to a similar range of accountability mechanisms.

One much debated matter touches on the balance between the personal accountability of a minister and that of the agency official. If something goes horribly wrong as it did in New Zealand on 28 April, 1995 in what became known as the ‘Cave Creek disaster’ where some 14 students fell to their death from a deficient viewing platform, is the constructor of the platform primarily accountable, his supervisor, the departmental CEO or the portfolio minister? The numerous enquires that followed that particular tragedy failed to clear the matter up adequately in the public eye. Perhaps each was responsible in their own way.

But who was accountable? Who should have picked up the tab when all the facts were laid bare? The regional conservator resigned immediately. The departmental CEO resigned, but only after he was satisfied the system of checks and balances to guard against a repeat of that tragic event was satisfactorily concluded and the member resigned later in May 1996.

Ethics and public accountability

Cabinet ministers delegate most of their powers to the departmental head who in turn delegates certain powers to staff. As public servants are entrusted with significant power and resources, this brings with it responsibility to perform duties in accordance with accepted standards of conduct. Community expectations about public sector performance and conduct are very high. In many ways, more stringent standards are applied to the public sector than elsewhere in society. The reasons for this are simply that the resources at the disposal of the executive and/or public servants have been acquired compulsorily. The grantor of the resources has had no choice in the matter. The most they can demand in return is adequate and clear accountability for the use of the resources so acquired.

Ethical behaviour is one of the principal means by which accountability is maintained in the public sector.⁴

The ethical framework flows from public service values, obligations and standards, which are in turn derived from legislation, policy and accepted public service conventions. Parliament has imposed a statutory responsibility on public servants to act ethically. There are codes of conduct for members of parliament and for public servants - certainly for the government departments. (The further away from the oversight of central agencies – e.g. fully autonomous statutory corporations – the less clear the strength of influence of the central agency to require codes of conduct covering members of governing bodies or their staff becomes. This is largely due to their relative autonomy as expressed in enabling legislation, the expectation that the governing board will require these aspects of good governance to be in place and the uncertainty of the authority of central agencies to mandate particular requirements).

The accountability of every officer of the public service must not only be clear, it must be well understood. For individuals, the type of organisation in which they work, as well as the position occupied, will determine the applicable legislative and policy regime.

According to that regime, the duties, responsibilities and powers of individual officers must be clearly spelt out, for example in a position statement or performance contract. Each officer will need to understand the legislation, delegations, and performance standards relevant to his or her duties.

Influences on public accountability

While the legal and ethical framework of government has remained essentially the same over the last decade there have been significant changes to the way government is conducted and services are provided. These changes include privatisation, corporatisation, outsourcing, budgetary and financial reform, and devolution of authority from central agencies.

It can be said that the biggest influence on public accountability is the changing environment in which government operates, resulting in an ongoing need to ensure the accountability relationships between parliament, the government, the public service and the electorate are defined in a credible manner that is acceptable to all parties.

The clearest accountability imperative is adherence to the rule of law (including delegated authorities). Conversely, the greatest uncertainties and conflicts are created by the administrative environment and its demands that are not clearly related to the legal framework applying to the public services, including any guidelines derived from particular statutes.⁵

Some of the key factors and emerging issues impacting on public accountability today are outlined below.

Performance reporting and management

Public reporting is one of the main means of discharging public accountability obligations. For many, transparency is the essence of accountability. Well-documented and reported performance information is fundamental to public agency accountability and effective management. It is a primary vehicle by which assurance is provided to parliament and the public that a government’s objectives are being met. Hopefully the reader can gauge whether those objectives are being achieved efficiently and effectively.

In Victoria, the performance management and reporting framework and associated performance indicators seek to link government policy outcomes with public sector outputs and the budget process. The framework is made up of three components: outputs, objectives and government outcomes. Outcome information in particular is one of the principal means of achieving program accountability, yet it is also the area in which the greatest gap in performance information still exists.

It is generally agreed that performance indicators need to become more outcome focussed. This not only includes information on what has been achieved but on cost effectiveness of these achievements.⁶

My recent report to parliament on performance management and reporting in Victoria⁷ found that although the key government measures set out in the government’s Growing Victoria Together provide a strong sense of priority and purpose:

• they do not cover the full scope of agency objectives or outputs

• they do not adequately link departmental objectives and outputs to government’s policy outcomes

• they have tended to focus at the key government indicator level and don’t allow ‘connected’ drill down to the agency level.

The Victorian performance management and reporting framework currently only includes government departments and not the full range of public sector entities that make contributions to the achievement of outcomes. There are a range of mechanisms by which government agencies are held accountable, however this abundance of mechanisms has not led to a greater public understanding of the benefits received from the activities of government and its agencies.⁸

A number of issues associated with reporting non-financial performance have been identified. These include:⁹

• there being few incentives for agencies to report more than they are legally required to. This is due to factors such as aversion to generating reactions to bad news, uncertainty over whether the additional information is appropriate, and uncertainty about the use to be made of the additional information.

• tension between parliamentary and managerial accountability in that accountabilities for managerial control by government differ from the accountabilities for oversight by parliament

• difficulties in translating overall mission/vision statements into identifiable outcomes and in turn linkage to the service provision (level and funding) decisions

• the absence of bridges between the preparers and users of the information, whereby the users do not always have a good grasp of how to assess performance and there is often a sense of having overwhelmed the general reader with too much information.

Non-financial performance reporting has a long way to go yet in Australia to be both useful and meaningful. We have yet to get the rewards and sanctions right. Because of the lack of symmetry between the different needs of users – ranging from managers to policy analysts, to government, to parliament and the public – insufficient attention has been given to recognising each of these quite different needs with the resulting outcome of KPIs being largely driven through the budgetary process (linked to resource allocation rather than achievement of goals and objectives – hence their orientation to efficiency rather than effectiveness) and departmental annual reports largely linked to KPIs associated with managing the services (outputs) of the agency.

So as things currently stand we are seeing many KPIs reported by agencies more as a compliance exercise rather than a genuine attempt to report on the effectiveness of programs. Part of the problem is also due to constraints of the annual reporting cycle. Effectively reporting against a number of government programs may require a more periodic and comprehensive solution as instanced in my recent report on the effectiveness of school literacy programs in Victoria.

Triple bottom line reporting

There is also a growing public interest in an organisation’s performance beyond its economic result, to its social and environmental performance. This has lead to demands for greater transparency and disclosure in these areas, with an emphasis on sustainable development and ethical behaviour.

In March 2000, the State Government summit Growing Victoria Together recommended a triple bottom line direction to policy development that integrated economic, social and environmental goals.

The State Government also approved the implementation of an environmental management system requiring departments to include, from 2003-04, information about their performance in relation to energy use, waste production, paper waste, water consumption, transportation, and how purchasing activities are environmentally responsible in their annual reports.

Conformance (process) vs. performance (results)

The community has a right to be assured that the programs to which funding is applied have a clear and relevant purpose, that programs are being run efficiently and effectively, are providing value for money, and that the highest standard of ethics are being maintained.

Agencies thus become accountable in two broad areas: the quality of outcomes and the quality of process (how well and how agency conforms to the ‘rules’). The challenge is to strike an appropriate balance between conformance and performance, determined by leadership decisions, values and identified preferences.¹⁰

Of necessity there are trade-offs between conformance and performance. In the past, the public sector has tended to focus on ensuring conformance with legal and procedural requirements rather than striving for exceptional performance. Indeed as auditors, our audit work frequently focuses on procedural fairness and compliance with authority. This has encouraged a risk averse attitude among public servants, with attention largely focussed on process than on achieving government objectives.

There needs to be a cultural change in the public sector if public servants are to focus more on achieving results and on being accountable for their performance, including effective management, rather than avoidance of risks.

That’s not to say that risks should be overlooked and not managed. Clearly they should be. In fact good risk management practices will provide the necessary balance between conformance and performance risk.

Outsourcing/private sector involvement in service provision

The employment of private persons or institutions for public purposes is not new. In Europe, in the 18th centuries and before, private provision of publicly funded services was almost the norm. What we are seeing now is a return to an earlier era, partly as a result of a search for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the use of public funds, and partly out of a preference for reducing the public sector and enlarging and enriching the private sector.¹¹

The involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services raises a number of important accountability questions. Can the same standards of accountability be applied to non-government providers of public service as is applied to government providers? Are private contractors to government as accountable as departmental officers providing the same service? Or does outsourcing reduce accountability?

The Victorian public accounts and estimates committee has noted differing views about whether outsourcing lessens the accountability of government for the provision of public services.¹²

In general, two factors have a significant impact on accountability practices.¹³ These are:

• inclusion of private sector organisations with significantly different accountability practices. While non-government organisations may adjust their accountability practices to fit more closely with the standards expected of the public sector, there are limits to their adaptability

• replacement of internal, organisational relationships with new contractual relationships between purchaser and provider.

Compared to the public sector, the private sector tends to be more accountable for results because commercial companies have a comparatively clear ‘bottom line’ (public sector agency objectives can be imprecise and may contain conflicting economic and social objectives), however it falls short in terms of process transparency and accountability.¹⁴

The overall reduction in accountability is most obvious when mistakes occur and members of the public seek remedies from the government. In the case of public service provision of services, the minister concerned will be able to conduct immediate inquiries and where possible impose immediate remedies. In the case of provision of services by a private contractor, the minister may at times be powerless to act¹⁵ – particularly if appropriate safeguards were not included in the contractual arrangements.

While contracting out services involves some diminution of ministerial and therefore parliamentary accountability, it does have potential to increase accountability in other respects. For example, the need to spell out service requirements in advance may force governments to clarify both the objectives sought through a particular service and the criteria by which the performance of providers is to be assessed.

This was my experience in outsourcing financial statement audits. Before the policy to outsource could be implemented some considerable effort was undertaken to codify precisely what a ‘legislative audit’ was to ensure that the activities formerly undertaken intuitively by staff were repeated by the private provider.

Commercial confidentiality concerns

The involvement of the private providers in service provision raises the question of to whom are outsourced contractors and their staff accountable? In practice, outsourcing tends to reduce the range of accountability mechanisms through which providers must answer.

Victoria’s public accounts and estimates committee observed that it is important that accountability in the delivery of government services be evidenced in fact by the capacity of the public to gain an awareness of the key features of contractual arrangements entered into and contribute to the decision making process.¹⁶

Greater participation of private sector has allowed governments to establish a new regime to limit the publication of material, based on the view that the details of government dealings with the private sector need to be protected from public scrutiny because the commercial value embedded in the contracts with the private sector would be diminished if those contracts were released.

In general, parliament and the Auditor-General have no direct access to contractors and freedom of information legislation does not apply. Only recently has Victorian audit legislation been amended to allow the Auditor-General to publicly disclose information contained in commercial in-confidence contracts. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman is not normally extended to private contractors when they provide public services.

One of the most notable effects of outsourcing has been the removal of certain accountability requirements for transparency and fairness expected in the public sector. For example, how much is paid for the service. Once a service is outsourced, the amounts of money paid to individual members of the outsourcing contract becomes commercially confidential and beyond the range of public enquiry. Matters of employment conditions, particularly the appointment to positions based on merit, are also no longer an issue for public concern.¹⁷

With the increased involvement of the private sector in provision of public services, the demonstration of accountability concepts (such as transparency, equity of treatment and probity of public resources, including application of public sector values and codes of conduct) has the potential to become clouded unless governments take a proactive and consistent stance to the scrutiny of contracts involving public funds.¹⁸

The convergence of the public and private sectors raises issues about the nature of accountability. Private sector providers are clearly under pressure from the openness and transparency required by public sector accountability to parliament and the community. There should be some movement towards striking a balance between the appropriate nature and level of accountability and the need to achieve cost effective outcomes by: emphasising project and contract management skills in public sector managers, basing commercial relationships on sound tendering and administrative procedures and an enforceable contract; and ensuring that public accountability is not eroded through a reduction in external scrutiny by parliament and the Auditor-General.¹⁹

Compliance with public sector values and conduct

It is important that non-public servants are made aware of the expected standards of conduct of public sector employees. When establishing agreements and contracts, agencies will need to consider factors such as the extent to which the private sector provider and its employees will be expected to comply with public sector values and code of conduct, any additional conduct requirements that reflect the agency’s business, and the action that may be taken if standards are not met.

Agencies must ensure that contractors are aware that public sector employees are bound by values and a code of conduct and do not place public servants in a position where their impartiality or professionalism may be compromised.

Private financing of government activities

In the current budgetary environment, public sector entities in many countries have found it difficult to provide dedicated funding for large projects out of annual budgets. The encouragement of private sector investment in public infrastructure by governments is one response to these budgetary pressures. It has also given rise to additional challenges and demands for public accountability and transparency because the parameters of risk are far different than is the case with traditional approaches to funding public infrastructure.²⁰

Private financing arrangements have been used extensively in the United Kingdom and by Australian State Governments, particularly in relation to infrastructure projects such as roads and buildings.

Public accountability issues are centred around whether the financing arrangement is in the public interest and offers better value for money, or net benefit, when compared with the best public sector delivery model. They also centre on the adequate transfer of risk and operational control to the private sector entity while reserving the capacity to protect the public interest and achieve government policy objectives.

There have also been concerns expressed about public accountability for privately financed projects, stemming from the reduction in the flow of performance information available and difficulties experienced by parliamentarians in gaining access to contract documents.²¹

In view of the growing interest in and use of private financing initiatives and the important financial, risk transfer and accountability issues raised, agencies will increasingly need to focus their attention on examining the broader public accountability issue. This will be important in meeting Parliament’s and the public’s need for assurance about the processes adopted and outcomes achieved.

Collaborative government/partnership arrangements

As governments continually reassess their role in society, they are being required to develop new approaches to policy making and service delivery arrangements. These are increasingly likely to involve the establishment of partnership arrangements. Public sector reform is also resulting in government objectives requiring the collaborative efforts of two or more agencies/parties/levels of government – joined up government.

Unfocussed and uncoordinated programs waste resources, confuse and frustrate customers and limit the overall program effectiveness. As a consequence, accountability arrangements will need to increasingly cross-organisational boundaries to better align activities and reduce barriers to effective cooperation and coordination.

Accountability in the areas of community service obligations, equity in service delivery and a high standard of ethics within a legislative-based values system are particularly critical to public sector agencies working in partnership to effectively deliver joined up services.²²

Working in partnership undoubtedly adds to the complexity of accountability arrangements.²³ Therefore, in any arrangement where there is joint responsibility for overseeing and implementing programs across a number of bodies, a clear governance framework including accountability and reporting arrangements – which clearly define roles and responsibilities of the various participants – is essential.

Agencies cannot continue to represent only their immediate areas of responsibility. They must also act in accordance with their cross-portfolio or inter-agency responsibilities. Any uncertainty experienced by private and/or public participants about their responsibilities can create confusion both as to who is accountable for what and the requirements of the various relationships with stakeholders.

The Canadian Auditor-General, in a study of collaborative partnerships involving government and non-government sectors in delivering services and policy making, suggested that while the minister is clearly accountable to parliament for the involvement of a federal department or agency, in a collaborative arrangement, partners could be held accountable for the achievement of results.²⁴

Joined up government inevitably involves at least dual accountability of participants both for their individual organisations and for the joined up arrangements. However, where the private sector is involved, the government and parliament may need to re-examine the more traditional notions of accountability and the extension of them to private sector participants.²⁵

Community consultation/participatory governance

Governments are increasingly outsourcing services and partnering with other agencies, sectors and the community at large in delivering outcomes. The mood is clearly moving towards the private and community sectors wanting greater involvement in public policy making based on the knowledge they have accumulated in service delivery.

Important accountability issues arise as more non-government players are involved in the policy development process.²⁶ In those circumstances can the principals of individual collective ministerial responsibility and accountability to parliament hold when the boundaries between the public and community sectors are blurred?

Developing an accountability framework that better fits collaborative arrangements may assist effective participatory governance. The participation and accountability of any independent parties involved in the development of government policies or the achievement of policy objectives needs to be made explicit and clear.

Determining how much participation is required on any particular issue for any stage in the policy cycle should lead to greater efficiency and use of resources compared to the more traditional approach to consultation.

While close relationships with stakeholders should better inform decision making, public service employees need to be clear about their obligations to be impartial, accountable and responsible to government. The closer and the more formal the relationship, the more important it is to clarify expectations and obligations, including the handling of confidential information to prevent unauthorised disclosure and transmission of advice. Conflicts of interest may arise where stakeholders become involved in decision-making or access to confidential information. This also needs to be appropriately managed.

Another important issue in relation to increased community participation in policy making is the impact on the legitimacy of the current model of representative democracy (where citizens elect representatives to make policy decisions for them). Such participation has potential to create tension between representative democracy and participatory democracy (where citizens are directly involved in policy decision making). Processes will be needed that address this tension when it arises.

Changes in society

We now live in a society that is infinitely more literate and informed, and thus far more discriminatory, than a few decades ago. Citizens are increasingly highly educated, more responsible and more critical. They have the knowledge and skills to lobby and influence decision makers and the media and thus mobilise public opinion and public confidence.

The ability of today’s community to scrutinise the activities of public sector entities has also increased due to the universal availability of information in the public arena including agency websites and printed material together with freedom of information and administrative investigations. These all serve to ensure continued application of the spotlight on the operations of the public sector and its public accountability.

Impact of information technology

Information technology is revolutionising the way the public sector operates. It has improved the ability of public sector organisations to communicate, share critical information and organise processes in a more efficient way.

It has the potential to expand the scope of public accountability by facilitating information sharing and delivery of information to the community. However, the effect in practice can be uneven.²⁷

Recipients must have access to the technology, and must have skills and confidence to access and interpret the information provided. There is potential for inequality in public accountability to result from accessibility barriers created for a minority of public citizens by computerised information systems.

As dependence on information technology grows and new and high-risk areas emerge, public sector agencies need to adopt modern practices to correct any underlying managerial problems that impede effective system development and operations. Unless appropriately controlled, computerised operations can offer numerous opportunities for committing fraud, unauthorised tampering with data or disrupting vital operations.²⁸

In moving to online service delivery in the public service, the complexities of the public sector environment, in particular the social, regulatory and legal issues faced in changing of service delivery models need to be considered and addressed.

Conclusion

The settings for the effective discharge of accountability obligations continue to change as governments seek new ways to more efficiently and effectively deliver community programs. Some of these changes, such as those associated with multi-party delivery, require new ways of thinking about how best to inform stakeholders about achievements. The traditional model does not envisage a sharing of responsibility – yet, in increasingly more circumstances, accountability is shared.

It is beyond question that leadership is required in seeking out appropriate ways to adapt to these influences of change. Perhaps the form of leadership needs to be more participative and collaborative than the practice that served us well in the past, where central agencies determined the course for others to follow. Managers of tomorrow will need increasingly to factor into their reform agenda, time and opportunity for buy-in and joint problem solving. There will be times when leaders will continue to need to take the initiative and establish broad direction, but the mode, nature and pace of progress, because it affects others, will require consultation and negotiation if solutions are to endure. Our challenge is to ensure all stakeholders are sufficiently well informed about progress made in achieving governmental goals.

¹ P. Barbaris, The New Public Management and a New Accountability in Public Administration. Autumn 1998.

² International Federation of Accountants, Governance in the Public Sector: A Governing Body Perspective, August 2001. Quoted in P.J. Barret, Auditor-General for Australia, Government Sector Accountability – the Impact of Service Charters in the Australian Public Sector, Queensland Commonwealth Regional Heads Forum 15^th Annual Government Business Conference, May 2003.

³ R. Mulgan, Accountability Issues in the New Model of Governance, Australian National University, Technical Report First Semester Seminars, Political Science Program, 2002.

⁴ Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh, John Wanna and Patrick Weller, Public Sector Management in Australia – New Challenges, New Directions, Centre for Australian Public Sector Management, 1999, pge 225.

⁵ P. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Some Current Issues in Accountability, Presentation at Public Service and Merit Protection Commission Senior Executive Series Breakfast Seminar Series, Canberra, July 2001.

⁶ P. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Better Performance Information for Greater Accountability, Speech for Challenges and Opportunities Seminar, conducted by the Australian Department of Finance, Canberra, September 1996.

⁷ Victorian Auditor-General, Performance Management and Reporting: Progress Report and a case study, April 2003, p 19.

⁸ Ibid, pp 7-8.

⁹ A. Neale and B. Anderson, Office of the Controller and Auditor-General New Zealand, Performance Reporting for Accountability Purposes – Lesson, Issues, Future, presentation for International Public Management Workshop, Wellington, New Zealand, March 2000.

¹⁰ P.J. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Government Sector Accountability – the Impact of Service Charters in the Australian Public Sector, Queensland Commonwealth Regional Heads Forum 15^th Annual Government Business Conference, May 2003.

¹¹ R. Mulgan, Accountability Issues in the New Model of Governance, Australian National University, Technical Report First Semester Seminars, Political Science Program, 2002.

¹² Victorian Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, Report No 34 – Report of the Inquiry into Outsourcing of Services in the Victorian Public Sector, March 2000, p 105.

¹³ R. Mulgan, opcit.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ South Australian Auditor-General, Report of the Auditor-General for the Year Ended 30 June 1998, Part A3 – Government Contracts: Some Audit Observations on the Accountability of Government.

¹⁶ Victorian Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, Report No 34 – Report of the Inquiry into Outsourcing of Services in the Victorian Public Sector, March 2000, p xxxi

¹⁷ R. Mulgan, Accountability Issues in the New Model of Governance, Australian National University, Technical Report First Semester Seminars, Political Science Program, 2002.

¹⁸ P. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Some Perspectives on the Audit Relationship with Parliament, Presentation for House of Representatives Occasional Seminar Series, September 2002, p 10.

¹⁹ P. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Public Private Partnerships – Are there gaps in public sector accountability?, Presentation for 2002 Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees, 7^th Biennial Conference, Melbourne, February 2003.

²⁰ P. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Some Current Issues in Accountability, Presentation at Public Service and Merit Protection Commission Senior Executive Series Breakfast Seminar Series, Canberra, July 2001.

²¹ P. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Public Private Partnerships – Are there gaps in public sector accountability?, Presentation for 2002 Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees, 7^th Biennial Conference, Melbourne, February 2003.

²² P.J. Barret, Auditor-General for Australia, Government Sector Accountability – the Impact of Service Charters in the Australian Public Sector, Queensland Commonwealth Regional Heads Forum 15^th Annual Government Business Conference, May 2003, p 28.

²³ Lord Sharman of Redlynch, Holding to Account: The Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government, London, February 2001.

²⁴ Canadian Auditor-General, Report of the Auditor-General, April 1999, Chapter 5.

²⁵ P. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Governance and Joined Up Government – Some Issues and Early Successes, Speech delivered at Australasian Council of Auditors-General, Melbourne, February 2003.

²⁶ Meredith Edwards, Participatory Governance, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration No 107, March 2003.

²⁷ Richard Heeks, Information Systems and Public Sector Accountability, Information Systems for Public Sector Management Working Paper Series Paper No 1, Institute for Development Policy and Management, Manchester, England, July 1998.

²⁸ P. Barrett, Auditor-General for Australia, Corporate Governance in the Public Sector Context, Canberra Bulletin for Public Administration No 107, March 2003.