Bulletin

Issue: March 2005

Society

Public sector accountability – A dilemma for demo

Political leaders in Australia and overseas make speeches about ‘good governance’ and ‘accountability’. Similar concerns have been raised by many organisations, including the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program.

However, according to La Trobe University Professor of Accounting, Kerry Jacobs, initiatives to improve governance and accountability often focus on changes to the bureaucracy, or calls to strengthen watchdogs outside the parliamentary system.

‘These initiatives can endanger the dignity and integrity of parliament and therefore undermine the core process of democracy.’

Professor Jacobs made these points recently when he addressed the concluding session of ACPAC 2005 – the 8th Biennial Conference of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees – held in Brisbane.

The conference was attended by 120 delegates, comprising Auditors General and the Heads and members of Public Accounts committees from Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and South Africa.

Professor Jacobs is Director of La Trobe University’s ‘Public Sector Governance and Accountability Research Centre’ (PSGARC).

Based on the University’s main Melbourne campus at Bundoora, the centre carries out independent research, training and support for members of public accounts and similar committees throughout Australia, the Commonwealth, and in neighbouring countries.
The Centre was launched at a ceremony in the Victorian Parliament House last year by Mr Peter Loney, MP, Deputy Speaker of the Victorian Parliament and Immediate Past Chairman of ACPAC.

Professor Jacobs told delegates to ACPAC 2005: ‘Little effort or expenditure has been focused on improving legislative capacity, particularly the functions of public accounts or similar committees, something that I think is central to good governance. The comparison would be if we were having discussions about corporate governance which failed to address the role and significance of the board of directors.

‘Another danger is the focus only on anti-corruption. While stopping corruption is clearly an important objective, it is easy to tar all politicians with the same brush.

‘The consequence is that anti-corruption campaigns generally turn their back on parliamentary systems and propose alternative structures and measures – which also undermine parliamentary democracy.’