THE ANNUAL REPORTS of the Auditor General do what they are supposed to do, but they make miserable reading for those of us who are concerned that the public finances are well accounted for after Parliament has voted sums in the Estimates to be used in the various aspects of the business of the Government.
These reports are a key aspect of the oversight by Parliament of money collected in taxes from the people and spent in the public interest. The importance of the procedure is underlined by the constitutional provision for the office of Auditor General and his protection from any interference while carrying out the duties of his office.
From time to time, members of the public raise questions about the follow-up to these reports, which are in their nature critical of many aspects of the public finances. The impression often gains ground that nothing is done to correct the deficiencies pointed out in the reports.
We do not believe that any Government ignores these reports, but we too are concerned about the operation of the mechanism established for providing proper and effective follow-up after the Auditor General’s office has done its work.
A key question at this juncture must be: what has happened to the Public Accounts Committee?
Once the report is handed to his Honour The Speaker on behalf of Parliament, and laid in the House of Assembly, it is the Public Accounts Committee to whom we must look for action on the report. The public interest requires that this committee should be in a position to function effectively.
We are well aware that there has been recent and not-so-recent controversy concerning the operations of the committee and that a bill to amend the act was presented to Parliament in January 2014 and read a first time, but that bill has not yet become an act.
Yet, whatever the present position, something needs to be done to resolve the situation and to generate some consensus between the two sides of the House on the modus operandi of the committee and to ensure the proper working of the system of checks and balances ostensibly in place to scrutinise the efficient spending of public funds approved by Parliament.
We should not, year after year, read the strictures of the Auditor General without calling for some specific accountability from those public officers, whoever they maybe, whose duty it was to execute as efficiently as possible Parliament’s grant and supply of money, when relevant questions are raised in the report.
One of the problems is that the Auditor General is reporting on money which has already been spent and that is why his reports should be treated with the greatest respect in order to avoid repetition of the same mistakes.
Imperfect as the system may be, there are certain features which must be maintained in any change. The Opposition, we think, should always have the chairmanship of the committee, but questions of admitting the press to committee hearings are likely to be thornier issues in small societies in which reputations, unfairly damaged, by first impressions, may be beyond repair and careers destroyed.
Yet there can be no doubt that the public interest is not as adequately protected as it might be if the Auditor General’s reports do not generate serious change to existing procedures to allow for the more intense scrutiny of public expenditure.
