Is the Audit Culture Going Too Far?
1 October 2005
I was intrigued to read a recent lecture which emphasised the
need to restore professional trust and judgment in organisations
like universities.
The lecturer, Professor Max Corden, is an Emeritus Professor of
International Economics at John Hopkins University in the US, and
he was delivering the lecture at the Australian National
University. He has a high international reputation and an
impressive publishing record on the Australian economy.
He quotes from an Australian report, and refers to similar
developments in Britain, which relate to regulation of the
university sector being 'out of control' and placing excessive
demands on universities scarce resources.
After covering aspects of change in universities spanning almost
two decades he raises the question, also raised in the UK of
whether an 'audit culture' is leading to 'indicator-driven
distortions and humanity-sapping working environments'.
The suggestion is made that there should be a 'detailed
cost-benefit analysis of the contemporary culture of audit and
accountability, and having in mind the restoration of professional
trust and judgement…and asking how…this might be achieved'.
It prompted me to reflect on some of the scrutiny that we, as is
every other Australian university, subjected to by State and
Federal Governments agencies.
This week we have a visit from a Department of Education Science
and Training (DEST) team from Canberra to discuss our 'Institution
Assessment Framework'. This annual process which leads to funding
outcomes is concerned with the scrutiny of strategic direction,
risk, engagement, capital asset management, equity, teaching and
learning, quality systems and indicators, research performance,
legislative compliance and much more. A hugely detailed portfolio
of statistics details USC's profile.
In addition there are now National Governance Protocols which
circumscribe areas relating to university administration and
Council responsibilities in which evaluation and scrutiny of
university actions and responses are major features. A suite of
detailed plans, commencing with the University's strategic plan has
to be produced by every major area and complement one another.
Compliance with IR reforms and Governance protocols is essential or
we lose significant funds.
Council itself is of course a scrutineer of University
operations and its subcommittees such as Audit and Risk Management,
and Planning and Resources add more expertise to the detailed
scrutiny of University operations.
Then we have the Queensland Audit Office conducting annual
audit, before which we have atrial audit, a preliminary audit, as
well as an independent 'internal' audit.
All of these committees and investigative teams occupy
significant resources both of a financial nature and of
personnel.
Then we have the broadening 'audit culture' being extended to
academic areas, with the Australian University Quality Agency
(AUQA) surveying us at considerable cost, next year. This follows
trial audit, faculty reviews, and special consultancies on
e-learning, core courses and the list goes on. And of course,
individuals are increasingly scrutinised.
There is no hint of fraud or underperformance, in fact quite the
opposite here, where large numbers of staff have consistently been
prepared to go the 'extra mile', to ensure the success of this
University in the region.
But we have no option other than to be scrutinised and
investigated to the level we are, because that is the nature of the
increasingly demanding and accountable university environment.
Planning and scrutiny there must be but I doubt this level of
scrutiny can be sustained without incurring unacceptable casualties
- perhaps not unlike the investigations into the health system that
suggest a preoccupation with an 'audit culture' can divert
attention from patients, or in our case, degree courses and
students, and staff and realising the best use of scarce
resources.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice-Chancellor of University of
the Sunshine Coast