Records management in APS agencies leaves a lot to be desired, says the National Audit Office. Photo: Yuri Arcurs.
Formal reviews of records management across government agencies have uncovered serious flaws in the way important information is gathered and kept in the Australian Public Service.
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has just released its Audit Lessons Insights report into government records management and found an abundance of failings in departments.
Much of these were uncovered during regular performance audits that are tabled in Federal Parliament, and this document is to highlight lessons learned with regards to records management.
“In the past five years, the majority of ANAO performance audit reports, including all 45 performance audit reports presented for tabling in the Parliament in 2023–24, included findings on deficiencies in records management,” its report states.
The serious failings included key records in some agencies being stored outside of official records management systems; others had no policy with regards to the records management of financial statements; inconsistent methods used; missing records; and some not being held or kept at all.
Some of the biggest breakdowns in records management occur following machinery of government changes when departments and agencies are merged, dropped, or created and/or new ministers appointed.
“The management of government records plays an integral role in Australian Government performance, integrity, accountability and transparency,” the ANAO states.
“A ‘record’ is information that is created, sent or received in the course of work done for the Australian Government (essentially, information with business value).
“Effective records management is required by law and helps entities retain critical sources of evidence for robust public administration, responsive service delivery, and accountability to the parliament and public.”
Analysis of recent ANAO audits highlights eight lessons on improving records management practices in Australian Government entities.
Agencies are being advised to: promote a culture where records management is valued; establish an information governance framework; make records available for use and reuse; use compliant records management systems; ensure official business communications are appropriately recorded; integrate records management into business processes; prioritise records management during machinery of government changes; and ensure records are complete and accurate.
The benefits of effective records management, the ANAO points out, are numerous and include:
- Better ability to meet business needs and outcomes;
- Greater assurance that legislative requirements are being met;
- Improved decision-making capability, including a reliable evidence base for decisions;
- Decreased risk of corporate knowledge loss and enhanced business continuity;
- Increased business efficiency;
- Improved network space management;
- Enhanced data security;
- Better preparedness during periods of change and emergencies;
- Greater parliamentary and public trust.
“Entities should take ongoing steps to promote a culture where the creation and maintenance of necessary records is valued for the benefits it can bring to individuals and the organisation, including the achievement of organisational objectives,” the ANAO says.
While the report contains a number of case studies naming agencies found to have specific problems with their records management, there is also praise for those doing it well.
A standout example is the Treasury.
“The ANAO has audited the performance statements of the Treasury since the 2021–22 reporting period,” the report states.
“In 2023–24, the ANAO assessed Treasury’s overall maturity in performance reporting as ‘advanced’.
“Treasury has well-established records management processes to enable the use and reuse of performance information and the monitoring and reporting of its performance.
“These processes are reflected in, and supported by: strong oversight by internal bodies such as the Audit and Risk Committee; sign-off of detailed information by senior staff to ensure measures are appropriate and results are certified; documented roles and responsibilities in performance reporting; high-quality methodology documentation; and regular reporting timeframes with a mid-cycle performance review.”
