This paper reviews, first, the dimensions of accountability underlying performance reporting. The history of reporting non-financial performance for accountability purposes in New Zealand is covered in the next section. Audit Office reports made significant early criticisms of the financial management and control in government departments, and our recent reports are still raising criticisms of some aspects of executive accountability. The lessons learned from a decade of reporting non-financial performance, together with some issues outstanding, are then discussed. Finally, future developments in reporting non-financial performance in the public sector from the Audit Office perspective are outlined.
Accountability has two applications in the context of reporting performance.
Applied to reporting performance, it leads to reporting on one's actions to those who have a right to know about actions taken and their consequences. This application of accountability is focussed on reporting to stakeholders who have either an oversight of, or a participatory role in, actions taken. Appropriate performance measures linked to decisions made and actions taken are required to achieve managerial accountability to stakeholders. Public sector changes that have been driven by agency theory, or new public management models, have focused on strengthening managerial accountability. It relates to accountability relationships in a central government context only, and has been adapted to reflect the context and language of New Zealand.