Performance Reporting by Australian Government Trading Enterprises: an Empirical Study 1998–2002

Abstract

Performance reporting forms a critical part of the governance processes of government trading enterprises (GTEs). Accountability and transparency are of particular concern because social obligations of GTEs could be compromised by the growing dominance of commercial objectives. An analysis of the reporting of performance information in the annual reports of selected GTEs over a five‐year period revealed a number of inadequacies, including diverse approaches to reporting about effectiveness, service quality, achievement of social objectives and comparative non‐financial performance. The analysis reinforces the need for further research into how annual reports can better reflect the performance of government businesses.

Examining statements of service performance: Evidence from wastewater services in new zealand

“…The poor disclosures of efficiency measures in service performance disclosures were also evident in studies by Boyne and Law (1991), Hyndman and Anderson (1995), Lonti and Gregory (2007) and Steccolini (2004). Lee (2006) also found Australian government trading enterprises in water industries provided no efficiency measures over the four years (1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002) of that study.…”

How might normative and mimetic pressures improve local government service performance reporting?

“…Interviews and focus groups with preparers and auditors could provide further data to build on the framework in this paper. Understanding how to improve performance reporting is important in the light of the integral nature of service performance reporting in discharging accountability (Hyndman and Anderson, ; Gray et al ., ; Barton, ), the introduction of regulation by standard setters (NZICA, ; Australian Accounting Standards Board, ; Governmental Accounting Standards Board, ; International Public Sector Accounting Standard Board, ) and the evidence of poor reporting in this and prior research (Boyne and Law, ; Hyndman and Anderson, ; Thompson, ; Foltin, ; Smith and Coy, ; Tooley and Guthrie, ; Hyndman and Eden, ; Ryan et al ., ; Steccolini, ; Ho and Ni, ; Lee, , ; Ellig, ; Lonti and Gregory, ; Kloot, ; Keerasuntonpong et al ., ). If reporting is to be improved, then the most effective pressures must be given priority.…”

“…Despite this authoritative emphasis on service performance reporting, shortcomings have been observed in the quality of public sector reporting generally. Indeed, researchers in various jurisdictions have typically stated that public sector reporting is underdeveloped, particularly in respect of comparative performance measures (Boyne and Law, ; Hyndman and Anderson, ; Thompson, ; Foltin, ; Smith and Coy, ; Tooley and Guthrie, ; Hyndman and Eden, ; Ryan et al ., ; Steccolini, ; Ho and Ni, ; Lee, , ; Ellig, ; Lonti and Gregory, ; Kloot, ; Keerasuntonpong et al ., ). Even in New Zealand, the quality of public sector entities' service performance reporting has been criticised as being substandard, despite two decades because it became mandatory (OAG, ).…”

The Rise and Use of Balanced Scorecard Measures in Australian Government Departments

“…While several studies have investigated government performance measurement practices in Europe, the US and New Zealand (e.g., Smith, 1993; Geiger and Ittner, 1996; Griffiths, 2003; Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004; and Modell, 2005), there is little Australian evidence on BSC performance measurement systems (Sharma and Wanna, 2005; Lee, 2006; and Herawaty and Hoque, 2007). BSC performance measurement practices in Australian government departments are likely to be different from other countries such as Canada, New Zealand and the UK due to the different regulatory environment and institutional frameworks.…”