Agreement thins where it bites
A finding is only half the story; the other half is whether anyone agreed to act. Where a response is recorded, agreement is overwhelming — but it softens precisely as findings get worse. The pushback is qualification, not refusal. (Genres that don’t record an agency response — royal commissions, PC inquiries — are excluded, not read as anything.)
The acceptance mix, by severity
As severity rises, full agreement migrates into ‘agreed in principle / partially’, while outright rejection stays near zero.
Full agreement falls from ~89% on mild findings to ~79% on the most severe; outright disagreement stays near 1% throughout.
The families that resist most — Safeguarding, Resource Allocation, Public Integrity — are the high-stakes ones. The largest family draws near-reflexive agreement.
The rare refusals
A live sample of the most severe findings agencies met with recorded disagreement — the exceptions that define the rule.
- Audit Office of New South Wales, 2023 — severity-5.0 · Audit Mandate: Integrity-guided oversight finding, response: disagreed.
- Ombudsman SA, 2018 — severity-5.0 · Conflict Rules: Formal but uneven finding, response: disagreed.
- Victorian Auditor-General's Office (VAGO), 2015 — severity-5.0 · Remediation: Persistent control and data gaps finding, response: disagreed.
- Inspector-General of Taxation, 2015 — severity-4.5 · Settlement Administration: Mostly fair, needs refinement finding, response: disagreed.
- Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), 2018 — severity-4.0 · Citizenship Control: Delays without lawful basis finding, response: disagreed.
- Commonwealth Ombudsman, 2008 — severity-4.0 · Custody Diversion: Poorly managed alternatives finding, response: disagreed.
- Productivity Commission, 2007 — severity-4.0 · Freight Subsidy: Distorted claims and incentives finding, response: disagreed.
- Audit Office of New South Wales, 2019 — severity-4.0 · Firearm Controls: Licensing oversight failed finding, response: disagreed.