Auditor-General exposes deep flaws in Queensland’s governance

Queensland’s Auditor-General is having a big week, with the publication of hard-hitting reports into the latest Queensland Health IT bungle (see today’s Courier-Mail) and the Government’s economic response to COVID-19. The report on the economic response revealed a lack of central oversight of the Government’s $7 billion of emergency measures. As has been widely reported already, in the introduction to the report the Auditor-General Brendan Worrall wrote:

While collating this report, we were unable to obtain information on some aspects of the response measures. Both Queensland Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet told us that, although they are involved in coordinating the response, they do not have complete information about what the uptake rates of the individual measures are.

We recognise that government agencies have had to work under extraordinary circumstances during the pandemic, rapidly designing response measures to unprecedented events. However, it is critical that the effectiveness of the government’s response is monitored and assessed to determine whether program outcomes have been achieved. This requires fit-for-purpose governance and reporting arrangements at a whole-of-government level.

It sure does. Unfortunately, they don’t exist for the emergency response, and I’m unsure such arrangements are adequate even in the best of times. As leading Australian public policy thinker and entrepreneur Nicholas Gruen has suggested on many occasions, we need to have monitoring and evaluation built into government policy design and delivery, possibly via his concept of an Evaluator-General. According to Nicholas, in a 2018 Mandarin article, the Evaluator-General would be:

…an independent statutory agency having investigative and reporting powers similar to the auditor-general, though in the area of monitoring and evaluation rather than audit…

…However, its role goes well beyond sitting atop government monitoring and evaluation systems. This proposal envisaged as the institution through which a new demarcation would be operationalised between program delivery on the one hand and resourcing expert knowledge on program performance on the other. Thus a line agency might deliver a program – or commission third parties to deliver it – but the evaluator-general would direct and provide substantial resources to the monitoring and evaluation system constituting the program’s ‘nervous system’.

Thus, monitoring and evaluation would be designed and operated in the field by officers of the evaluator-general. For this to work well, they and the delivery agency would need to collaborate closely. However, the evaluator-general would have ultimate responsibility for monitoring and evaluation in the event of disagreement.

Given the multiple problems we’ve seen with the delivery of government programs in Queensland and nationwide over the years, trialling the Evaluator-General concept seems like a good idea. We need to do much better than we have been to ensure public money is spent wisely and effectively.

Incidentally, the ability of members of the public to understand what Government is doing during the crisis has been compromised by its failure to produce a proper state budget and departmental service delivery statements. They provide at least some degree of transparency and accountability.

Let’s hope the Auditor-General’s reports are being widely read by the public servants in 1 William St, aka the Tower of Power.

This entry was posted in Budget, Macroeconomy and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Auditor-General exposes deep flaws in Queensland’s governance

  1. Rayvic says:

    “Given the multiple problems we’ve seen with the delivery of government programs in Queensland and nationwide over the years, trialling the Evaluator-General concept seems like a good idea. We need to do much better than we have been to ensure public money is spent wisely and effectively.”

    This is particularly the case, now that so-called environmental factors play such a large part, very often dysfunctional.

    Thanks to the unquestioned pursuit of green ideology, the economy fails to advance. By adopting policies that: promote science- and economics-unjustified renewable energy; aim to achieve zero emissions by 2050; divert 20% or more of Murray-Darling irrigation water to preservation of artificial freshwater lakes at the Murray mouth; discourage hazard reduction burning thereby guaranteeing extremely severe bushfires that destroy flora and fauna including koalas; Australia is going backwards.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s