Australia

Which countries lead in budget accountability? Which ones need improvement? Explore our data and recommendations for each of the 125 countries assessed.
Open Budget Survey Results

Public Participation

37

Budget Oversight

67

Transparency

78

Open Budget Survey 2023

Government budget decisions – what taxes to levy, what services to provide, and how much debt to take on – have important consequences for all people in society. When governments provide information and meaningful channels for the public to engage in these decisions, we can better ensure public money is spent on public interests.

Read more

 

The Open Budget Survey (OBS) is the world’s only independent, comparative and fact-based research instrument that uses internationally accepted criteria to assess public access to central government budget information; formal opportunities for the public to participate in the national budget process; and the role of budget oversight institutions, such as legislatures and national audit offices, in the budget process.

The survey helps local civil society assess and confer with their government on the reporting and use of public funds. This 9th edition of the OBS covers 125 countries.

Summary
Country Specific Assessments
Country summary EN
pdf, 230.47 KB
Questionnaire EN
pdf, 1.02 MB
78 /100

This part of the OBS measures public access to information on how the central government raises and spends public resources. It assesses the online availability, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of eight key budget documents using 109 equally weighted indicators and scores each country on a scale of 0 to 100. A transparency score of 61 or above indicates a country is likely publishing enough material to support informed public debate on the budget.

Transparency in Australia compared to others

Global Average
45
OECD Average
67
New Zealand
87
Australia
78
Germany
76
Canada
74
France
74
United States
69
United Kingdom
62
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Australia’s ranking: 11 of 125 countries

0
100

How has the transparency score for Australia changed over time?

74
2017
79
2019
79
2021
78
2023
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

Public availability of budget documents in Australia

Key
Available to the Public
Published Late, or Not Published Online, or Produced for Internal Use Only
Not Produced
Scroll
Document 2017 2019 2021 2023
Pre-Budget Statement
Executive’s Budget Proposal
Enacted Budget
Citizens Budget
In-Year Reports
Mid-Year Review
Year-End Report
Audit Report

How comprehensive is the content of the key budget documents that Australia makes available to the public?

Key
61-100 / 100
41-60 / 100
1-40 / 100
Scroll
Key budget document Document purpose and contents Fiscal year assessed Document content score
Pre-Budget Statement Discloses the broad parameters of fiscal policies in advance of the Executive's Budget Proposal; outlines the government's economic forecast, anticipated revenue, expenditures, and debt. 2022-23 Not Produced
Executive’s Budget Proposal Submitted by the executive to the legislature for approval; details the sources of revenue, the allocations to ministries, proposed policy changes, and other information important for understanding the country's fiscal situation. 2022-23 86
Enacted Budget The budget that has been approved by the legislature. 2022-23 89
Citizens Budget A simpler and less technical version of the government's Executive’s Budget Proposal or the Enacted Budget, designed to convey key information to the public. 2022-23 42
In-Year Reports Include information on actual revenues collected, actual expenditures made, and debt incurred at different intervals; issued quarterly or monthly. 2021-22 & 2022-23 74
Mid-Year Review A comprehensive update on the implementation of the budget as of the middle of the fiscal year; includes a review of economic assumptions and an updated forecast of budget outcomes. 2022-23 93
Year-End Report Describes the situation of the government's accounts at the end of the fiscal year and, ideally, an evaluation of the progress made toward achieving the budget's policy goals. 2021-22 79
Audit Report Issued by the supreme audit institution, this document examines the soundness and completeness of the government's year-end accounts. 2021-22 81

Australia’s transparency score of 78 in the OBS 2023 is near its score in 2021.

What changed in OBS 2023?

Australia has decreased the availability of budget information by:

Failing to produce the pre-budget statement. However, the absence of a pre-budget statement is not a significant departure from the norm. Historically, Australia does not typically publish a Pre-Budget Statement. The instance of a Pre-Budget Statement in the 2021 OBS survey occurred under exceptional circumstances during the COVID pandemic.

Recommendations

Australia should prioritize the following actions to improve budget transparency:

Produce and publish the Pre-Budget Statement online in a timely manner.
Improve the comprehensiveness of the Citizen's Budget by establishing mechanisms to identify the public’s requirements for budget information, and by publishing citizens' versions of budget documents covering the approval, execution, and audit phases of the budget cycle.
37 /100

The OBS assesses the formal opportunities offered to the public for meaningful participation in the different stages of the budget process. It examines the practices of the central government’s executive, the legislature, and the supreme audit institution (SAI) using 18 equally weighted indicators, aligned with the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency’s Principles of Public Participation in Fiscal Policies , and scores each country on a scale from 0 to 100.

Australia has a public participation score of 37 (out of 100).

Public participation in Australia compared to others

Global Average
15
OECD Average
24
New Zealand
55
United Kingdom
54
Australia
37
France
37
Canada
26
United States
22
Germany
17
0
Insufficient
61
Sufficient
100

For more information, see here  for innovative public participation practices around the world.

Extent of opportunities for public participation in the budget process

40
/100
Formulation
(executive)
56
/100
Approval
(legislature)
0
/100
Implementation
(executive)
67
/100
Audit
(supreme audit institution)
Key
0-40: Few
41-60: Limited
61-100: Adequate

Recommendations

Australia's Treasury has established pre-budget submissions during budget formulation but, to further strengthen public participation in the budget process, should also prioritize the following actions:

Maintain and institutionalize a framework for monitoring budget implementation. Explore the possibility of centralizing consultations facilitated by a central budget coordinating agency (Treasury or Department of Finance).
Actively engage with vulnerable and underrepresented communities, directly or through civil society organizations representing them.

Australia's Parliament has established submissions related to the approval of the annual budget, but should also prioritize the following actions:

Allow any member of the public or any civil society organization to testify during its hearings on the budget proposal prior to its approval.
Allow members of the public or civil society organizations to testify during its hearings on the Audit Report.
67 /100

The OBS examines the role that legislatures and supreme audit institutions (SAIs) play in the budget process and the extent to which they provide oversight; each country is scored on a scale from 0 to 100 based on 18 equally weighted indicators. In addition, the survey collects supplementary information on independent fiscal institutions (see Box).

The legislature and supreme audit institution in Australia, together, provide adequate oversight during the budget process, with a composite oversight score of 67 (out of 100). Taken individually, the extent of each institution’s oversight is shown below:

Legislative oversight

0
58
100
limited

Audit oversight

0
83
100
adequate
Key
0-40: Few
41-60: Limited
61-100: Adequate

Recommendations

Australia's Parliament provides limited oversight during the planning stage of the budget cycle and adequate oversight during the implementation stage. To improve oversight, the following actions should be prioritized:

The legislature should debate budget policy before the Executive’s Budget Proposal is tabled and approve recommendations for the upcoming budget.
Legislative committees should examine the Executive’s Budget Proposal and publish reports with their analysis online.
A legislative committee should examine in-year budget implementation and publish reports with their findings online.
A legislative committee should examine the Audit Report and publish a report with their findings online.

To strengthen independence and improve audit oversight by the Australia National Audit Office, the following actions are recommended:

Ensure the supreme audit institution has adequate funding to perform its duties, as determined by an independent body (e.g., the legislature or judiciary).

The emerging practice of establishing independent fiscal institutions

Australia’s independent fiscal institution (IFI) is the Parliamentary Budget Office. Its independence is set in law and reports to the legislature. It publishes its own medium-term fiscal forecasts, and its own cost estimates of some new policy proposals.

The indicators on IFIs are not scored in the Open Budget Survey.

Methodology

Only documents published and events, activities, or developments that took place through 31 December 2022 were assessed in the OBS 2023.
 
The survey is based on a questionnaire completed in each country by an independent budget expert:

Grattan Institute

To further strengthen the research, each country’s draft questionnaire is also reviewed by an anonymous independent expert, and in Australia by a representative of the Treasury.
Past reports
Years
Language
Country summary EN
PDF, en
Questionnaire EN
PDF, en
Country summary EN
PDF, en
Questionnaire EN
PDF, en
Country summary EN
PDF, EN
Questionnaire EN
PDF, EN