Miss

The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 373–398 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00646.x

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Parliament
Scrutiny
of
Government
Performance
in
Australia

Paul G. Thomas
University of Manitoba

This
article
examines
how
the
Commonwealth
Parliament
of
Australia
seeks
to
hold
responsible
ministers
directly
and
senior
public
servants
indirectly
accountable
for
the
performance
of
departments
and
programs
on
the
basis
of
published
performance
data
and
inquiries
conducted
by
parliamentary
committees.
From
the
perspective
of
an
outsider,
the
scrutiny
process
in
the
Australian
parliament,
although
not
without
its
problems,
is
more
systematic
and
substantive
than
is
the
case
in
other
parliamentary
systems
such
as
Canada.
Creating
a
more
meaningful
dialogue
in
the
Australian
parliament
on
performance
issues
will
depend
more
on
changes
to
the
intersecting
cultures
of
the
legislature,
government
and
the
public
service
than
on
organisational
and
procedural
reforms
to
any
of
those
institutions.

Key
words:
accountability
performance, parliamentary
scrutiny, estimates
hearings

This article focuses on how the Commonwealth assessing parliament’s overall performance of
Parliament of Australia seeks to hold respon-its scrutiny role, it is necessary to distinguish
sible ministers directly, and senior public ser-between the contribution of the House of Repvants
indirectly, accountable for the perfor-resentatives, which is generally seen to be unmance
of departments and programs on the der tight government control, and that of the
basis of published performance data and in-Senate where the usual absence of a governquiries
conducted by parliamentary commit-ment majority is said by many informed ob-
tees. The publication of information about servers to permit a stronger legislative review
performance...