Dr Cooper highlighted the speed with which the appointment was announced and said it had been made largely at the discretion of Chief Minister Andrew Barr.

It was within the powers of Mr Barr and cabinet to make, Dr Cooper said, deciding not to proceed to a formal audit. But she highlighted the lack of procedures for such appointments.

She sought advice from the solicitor-general, who told her that that unlike the process for public servants, "there is no required process and it is open to the executive to create the role and make the appointment in the manner in which it occurred. The executive simply has the power to create a role and appoint a person to that role, establishing the terms and conditions for that appointment."

Dr Cooper recommended the government develop guidelines for significant appointments, but Mr Barr has already thrown doubt on the possibility, telling Dr Cooper that the point of executive appointments was flexibility and speed.

"My overriding concern will be to ensure the flexibility of the executive to exercise its discretion is not unreasonably limited. This includes ensuring that such appointments can continue to be made swiftly," Mr Barr said.

"Indeed, your report seems to infer the process ... was somehow deficient simply because it occurred quickly. Without reservation, I would say that government acting quickly to respond to a pressing need is unequivocally a good thing."

Mr Barr's surprise appointment of Mr Smyth in July created a political headache for the Liberals in the lead up to the election, with Mr Smyth the party's lead candidate in the crucial Tuggeranong seat.

The appointment was led in the public service by Jeff House, a former chief of staff to Labor deputy leader Ted Quinlan and, until late 2015, head of Clubs ACT, when he became a deputy director-general in Mr Barr's directorate. Mr Smyth reports to Mr House.

Dr Cooper said the job had been created in close consultation with Mr Barr's office.

The first documented discussion within the public service regarding the creation of the position of Commissioner for International Engagement was on July 4 2016. Eight days later, Mr Barr announced the new position. The next day, July 13, officials recommended Mr Smyth and it was announced July 15.

Dr Cooper said while she made no suggestion that Mr Smyth was not suitable for the job, "the general paucity of documentation ... lacks transparency".

The government should have prepared a business case to justify the need for the job.

"In this instance, although some aspects of the process are well documented ... there is little documentation to indicate how potential candidates were to be identified, what skills, experience or qualifications were desirable, or how candidates were to be assessed. An open selection process was not used and the now commissioner was approached as the sole candidate."

"... Better practice would be to ensure that whatever process was adopted was transparent, without bias and fully documented. The community expects that appointees will not only be well qualified, but that the process used will be fair and appropriate."

Dr Cooper found little explanation of how Mr Smyth's salary, of $252,000 plus benefits, was chosen, other than an email from Mr House on July 4, saying, "My current thinking is to peg this position to the public servant equivalent of a ministerial salary," but giving no reasons.

The Commissioner for Public Administration told Dr Cooper the pay had to be sufficient to attract the right calibre of candidates and to vest the job with seniority and authority. It also had to be lower or the same as Mr House's salary given the reporting line.

The solicitor‐general told the auditor pay for such roles was often established by the Remuneration Tribunal, but that was not necessarily the case. Consultants were often engaged to assess pay.

Dr Cooper said the pay rate should have been referred to the Remuneration Tribunal, she said.

Despite her criticisms, she found the appointment was "broadly consistent with sound public administration" because the role was considered necessary; accountability and reporting arrangements for the office itself were suitable; and the appointment was within the powers of the executive.