Commentary: Where You Sit Is What You See: The Seven Deadly Sins of Performance Auditing. Implications for Monitoring Public Audit Institutions

It has to be observed at the outset that performance auditing has been a contentious issue for much of the three decades it has been pursued in Australia. That said, there is clear evidence of its growth and acceptance in that period. Nevertheless, there are still apparent differences in views and perceptions across the main stakeholders, not least related to the performance and results achieved by the Audit Offices involved. In these respects, Stuart Kells highlights deficiencies that need to be addressed to instill greater confidence in such auditing. In my view, many of these deficiencies (Sins) have been addressed, particularly in the last decade or so, and we may be better employed in focusing more on the achievement of identifiable outcomes as a result of such auditing. Do performance audits actually make a 'difference'? Such a focus does not ignore questions about how performance audits are selected, conducted and reported, nor their quality and relevance. Rather, a major challenge is to put in place a robust review framework that would markedly add to accountability for implementation of agreed audit outcomes.