When I say that continuous rule-making may be more effective in our current circumstances, and certainly in the short to medium term, in checking corruption than ethical education of the elite, I have in mind such simple logic as recognising the difference between retrospective auditing (the attitude of our Auditors General and their assigns) and transactional accounting. Why can we not amend the practice of the Controller and Accountant General to include monthly value for money reviews of expenditure? The job of the Auditor General will then be expanded to include testing these value for money reviews for compliance and soundness. That way, silly expenditure patterns can be detected, not 2 years later, but within a short time after they emerge. Why is this so hard to appreciate? Why do we need to wait for years to read an Auditor General report to know that ridiculous misuse of money is going on in the public sector?
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:55:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015