Auditor-General: ‘narrow interpretations’ a leadership fail

Featured Video Play Icon

Public service needs an army of risk managers, the auditor-general says, not tick-and-flick managers that narrowly interpret government objectives and commitments.

Too many public sector agencies have a “tick-and-flick” approach to meeting the expectations upon them with no follow up or assurance checking, a disappointed Auditor-General Ian McPhee has warned.

Speaking at a parliamentary hearing Wednesday on his recent audit of the Australian Electoral Commission, McPhee said institutional “narrow interpretation” of recommendations and priorities by managers was a problem seen in many agencies:

“It’s not good enough to just presume that because management has decided this will happen that it will happen. There needs to be appropriate follow up arrangements; there needs to be understanding amongst the managers in the organisation that it is their responsibility to ensure these things actually happen and take responsibility for checking that they have been.

“Narrow interpretation is a short-hand term that I use when something is agreed to be done, [but not checked] to make sure that is actioned and done in an appropriate way. And not only is it actioned in an appropriate way but having the desired impact as well. In some of the reports we do, it’s very obvious managers take a narrow view of their responsibility; don’t check with colleagues that the desired effect has taken place.”

FREE membership to The Mandarin

Receive unlimited access, get all the latest public sector news and features, plus The Juice, our daily news update sent direct to your inbox.

The Mandarin is where Australia's public sector leaders discuss their work and the issues faced within modern bureaucracy. Join today to discover the latest in public administration thinking and news from our dedicated reporters, current and former agency heads and senior executives.

  • Rhys

    What a pity that an induction process is not mandatory for all public sector senior executive which covers of responsibilities such as this, and underlying benefits of a good audit function. I stress “good” audit function because a poor one only serves to assist in the deterioration of views on the value of audit (internal and external). One of the risks associated with having an outsourced audit internal audit function is that providers often “over-recommend”.
    Every small thing is noted, and each has an assigned management action. They see this as the best way to demonstrate how much work has been done and to justify the expense. It does neither, and instead managers are faced with reports that are too long and a myriad of recommendations for which they must provide periodic status updates.
    Among the large volume of material within reports that cross the desk of management is perhaps one or two findings and recommendations which are important and which must be addressed, since it represents a major risk in achieving an objective. However, the chances are that, if managers have been over-burdened with reports littered with small value findings and recommendations in the past, then they have already lost interest in a process that their previous experience has demonstrated has little value to them.
    We (internal auditors) should recognise that our underlying purpose is to be a risk-management tool for senior executive and that means getting to the point quickly.