OPINION
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Last year the Australian National Audit Office had to go cap in hand to Finance Minister Mathias Cormann for approval to report an operating loss of $4.778 million for 2018-19.
It is a jarring image.
An organisation whose purpose is to hold the government to account is simultaneously beholden to that same government for its financial position.
Like much of the public service, over the years the ANAO has had to make do with tight government funding.
In last year's budget, its appropriation dropped to $69.7 million, down from almost $73 million in 2016-17, as the efficiency dividend and other savings measures continued to gnaw away.
The office's finances were driven into deficit as it tried to fulfill its obligations while implementing a plan to recruit and retain staff to reduce its reliance on contractors, and to boost its productivity by investing in IT.
It is a vulnerable position to be in, and one that has had real effects.
In 2008 the audit office for the first time flagged that the efficiency dividend would force it to cut the number of audits it undertook.
This alarmed Parliament's Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which reviews the adequacy of ANAO's budget.
The committee initiated an inquiry into the effect of the efficiency dividend on smaller government agencies such as the ANAO.
In its report, the committee found that although there was a role for the efficiency dividend, it had to be applied carefully.
One of its biggest concerns was that agencies struggling to meet ongoing costs would cut back on investment, to the long-term detriment of those they are meant to serve.
"This is a real risk because agencies are reluctant to report financial difficulties. They are concerned it would appear that poor management was to blame when the problem may really be insufficient funding," the committee warned.
It recommended that the first $50 million of funding (about $62 million in current terms) be exempt from the dividend, which would significantly soften the blow of the savings measure on smaller agencies.
The idea has never been enacted.
The efficiency dividend is a favourite tool of governments of all stripes who are on the hunt for savings, and they show no sign of curbing its use, regardless of its impact on the effectiveness of agencies to carry out their work.
Then there is the temptation to use savings measures to exert control.
After dropping his bombshell report on the $100 million Community Sport Infrastructure Program last month, Auditor-General Grant Hehir can probably expect a frosty reception when he next walks through the ministerial wing of Parliament House.
That probably won't bother him overly.
But can ANAO automatically expect government approval if, like last year, it reports an operating loss?
It would be hard for the Finance Minister to deny support, particularly if the ANAO gets the backing of the Public Accounts Committee.
But the fact that it is a possibility, however remote, highlights the vulnerabilities built into current governance arrangements.
No government likes external scrutiny (at least, not until they are next in Opposition), and some argue that the Morrison regime is particularly secretive.
As evidence, they point to the watered-down version of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission it has proposed.
Under its model, the commission would be incapable of holding government ministers and their staff to account or holding public hearings.
Bridget McKenzie and her office would have nothing to fear.
In the absence of a proper Commonwealth integrity organisation the task of scrutinising the government is largely left to Parliament, agencies like ANAO, the media and whistleblowers.
Each does their bit, but the sports grants scandal shows the challenge in enforcing accountability under current arrangements.
As long as ministers face no consequences for their actions, don't expect an end to behaviour that fails the pub test.