Strengthening Victorian performance with independent advice

Public sector programs are funded by taxpayers and judged in the court of public opinion. Outcomes matter, but so does the integrity of the process that produces those outcomes. 

Independent advice helps agencies demonstrate both, giving taxpayers (shareholder) confidence that decisions are transparent, defensible, and aligned with legislation and community expectations.

Warwick Spargo, Partner in Audit and Assurance at RSM in Melbourne, has spent nearly four decades providing external and internal audit services across government. As one of the largest providers of external services to the Auditors-General across Australia, he has seen first-hand how independence lifts the quality of performance evaluation and rebuilds public trust. “I am motivated by providing an independent voice and assessment in public sector accounting, service provision and infrastructure,” he says.

What independent advice means and why it matters

In the public sector, independence is more than a principle. It is a safeguard against groupthink and narrow judgement. Independent evaluation brings an objective view to the way programs are designed, governed and delivered, not just how they look at the end.

Warwick puts it plainly: independence “builds confidence in the outcome and the process.” In periods where quick wins and visual results can overshadow the basics of probity and value for money, an independent lens tests whether the steps taken were transparent, fair and proportionate to the benefits delivered.

Supporting compliance with Victorian frameworks

Independent evaluation helps entities meet obligations under the Financial Management Act 1994 and the Standing Directions and related guidance on governance, assurance and performance. It also complements the remit of integrity bodies such as IBAC, reinforcing probity, fairness and transparency in decision-making.

The practical benefits include:

• clear documentation of decision trails and approvals
• alignment between objectives, performance measures and outcomes
• evidence that procurement and contract management followed probity expectations
• assurance that value for money has been tested and achieved.

Common blind spots in self-assessment

Across departments and agencies, similar problems recur when organisations review themselves:

• Groupthink: teams validate their own assumptions and discount contrary evidence.
• Piecemeal measurement: each branch assesses its own inputs, but no one steps back to test end-to-end performance.
• Outcome bias: visible results are used to justify weak processes.
• Narrow scopes: internal reviews confirm an already preferred position rather than test alternatives.

Independent reviewers counter these tendencies by setting a whole-of-program scope, testing assumptions, and triangulating evidence across finance, operations and service outcomes.

Managing complex and sensitive reviews

High-stakes evaluations often sit in a political or media spotlight. In that environment, short statements can crowd out long-form analysis. Warwick notes that independent voices can be “segregated and marginalised” when communication defaults to quick grabs. A disciplined, independent methodology restores balance, documenting facts, acknowledging constraints, and setting out options with consequences so decision-makers are not driven only by the news cycle.

Where independence changes outcomes

Warwick cites transport infrastructure as an example of independence improving results. Early objectives emphasised visible outputs, but independent advice challenged whether replacement assets and operating models matched long-term needs. The result was remedial action and better planning in later phases - a shift from “remove the bottleneck now” to “design the network that works best over time”.

You can read more case studies here.

Balancing robust critique with trust

Independence does not mean distance. Effective reviewers engage early and respectfully, explaining scope and criteria and inviting frank input. “You need engagement and respect,” Warwick says. “Go in without a preconceived outcome and you will get honest information.” Where specialist expertise is needed (for example, engineering quality or service design), independent advisors bring in the right experts rather than overreach.

What good performance evaluation looks like

Strong public sector evaluations are:

• Independent: free from real and perceived conflicts, with a clear scope and evidence standards.
• Holistic: end-to-end view from need, options and procurement through delivery and benefits realisation.
• Evidence-based: triangulation across financials, operations, outcomes and stakeholder experience.
• Practical: recommendations that are costed, sequenced and implementable.
• Transparent: clear rationale, assumptions and limitations so decisions can be defended.

Risks of relying only on internal reviews

Internal reviews can be valuable, but over-reliance has costs:

• pressure to confirm an existing position
• difficulty finalising reports where consensus is required
• limited challenge to assumptions or measures
• stakeholder scepticism about neutrality.

As Warwick notes, an independent reviewer seeks acceptance, not unanimity. The role is to present a fair assessment and feasible improvements, even when findings are uncomfortable.

How RSM approaches public sector performance reviews

RSM brings the depth of a national audit and assurance practice with a strong public sector focus. The team regularly supports Auditors-General across Australia and provides internal audit, probity and forensic services to Victorian entities. That balance skews towards independent assurance, not large-scale consultancy.

Practical checklist for commissioning an independent performance review

• Define the question: what decision will this review inform?
• Set the boundaries: scope, period, programs and data sources.
• Nominate measures: success indicators that link to objectives.
• Confirm independence: conflicts test, team composition, expert needs.
• Plan the evidence: data access, interviews, fieldwork, benchmarking.
• Agree deliverables: interim updates, draft findings, final report and action plan.
• Prepare to implement: owners, timelines and benefits realisation.

About Warwick Spargo

Warwick Spargo is a Partner in Audit and Assurance at RSM Melbourne and a public sector specialist with more than 38 years of experience across external and internal audit. He is one of the largest providers of external services to the Auditors-General across Australia, covering public financial corporations with assets exceeding $100 billion. Warwick also advises the education and water sectors on consulting and internal audit matters. He has previously served on the council of a Victorian university and the board of a Victorian hospital. He is a public sector member of the AASB Technical Reference Group for AASB 17 Insurance Contracts.

Need an independent lens?

Speak with Warwick, about commissioning a fit-for-purpose evaluation that stands up to scrutiny and helps you deliver better outcomes for Victoria.

Independent advice strengthens outcomes and the public’s confidence in how those outcomes are achieved. For Victorian public sector leaders, it is a practical way to meet legislative expectations, cut through groupthink, and make better long-term decisions in the public interest.

Start the conversation today.