1 / 47

External Scrutiny and Audit (PI-26, PI-27, PI-28)

External Scrutiny and Audit (PI-26, PI-27, PI-28). Ghanashyam Parajuli Director Office of the Auditor General. Presentation Outline. PI-26 Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit . PI-27 Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law .

devona
Télécharger la présentation

External Scrutiny and Audit (PI-26, PI-27, PI-28)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. External Scrutiny and Audit(PI-26, PI-27, PI-28) GhanashyamParajuli Director Office of the Auditor General

  2. Presentation Outline • PI-26 Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit. • PI-27 Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law. • PI-28 Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports. • Past Assessment • Way forward

  3. PI-26 Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit. • Dimensions to be assessed (Scoring method M1) (i) Scope/nature of audit performed (incl. adherence to auditing standards). (ii) Timeliness of submission of audit reports to legislature. (iii) Evidence of follow up on audit recommendations.

  4. Dimension (i) Scope/nature of audit performed • Key questions 1. What legislation regulates external audit (including organization of SAI)? 2. What % of total expenditure of central government was achieved in audit coverage for last FY audited (50% or less, over 50%, over 75% or 100%)? 3. Do audit activities cover PEs & AGAs? 4. What is nature of external audit performed (audits of transactions or audits of systems)? 5. Are performance audits performed in addition to financial audits? 6. To what extent do audit activities adhere to auditing standards?

  5. Dimension (i) Coverage Central government incl. all MDAs and AGAs. Critical period/time Last FY audited. Quantifiable data required Percentage of all central government entities including AGAs (by value of expenditure) that were audited during the last year. Information sources Auditor General, corroborated by Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and civic interest groups.

  6. Dimension (i)- Rating criteria A. All entities of central government are audited annually covering revenue, expenditure and assets/liabilities. A full range of financial audits and some aspects of performance audit are performed and generally adhere to auditing standards, focusing on significant and systemic issues. B. Central government entities representing at least 75% of total expenditures are audited annually, at least covering revenue and expenditure. A wide range of financial audits are performed and generally adheres to auditing standards, focusing on significant and systemic issues. C. Central government entities representing at least 50% of total expenditures are audited annually. Audits predominantly comprise transaction level testing, but reports identify significant issues. Audit standards may be disclosed to a limited extent only. D. Audits cover central government entities representing less than 50% of total expenditures or audits have higher coverage but do not highlight the significant issues.

  7. Dimension (ii) Timeliness of submission of audit reports to legislature. • Key questions 1. What is the law on the timeliness of submission of audit reports to legislature? 2. Is the legislation followed in practice? 3. When are audit reports submitted to legislature after end of period covered (more than 12, within 12, 8 or 4 months)? 4. When are audits of financial statements submitted to legislature from their receipt by the auditors (more than 12, within 12, 8 or 4 months)?

  8. Dimension (ii) Coverage Central government incl. all MDAs and AGAs. Critical period/time Last annual audit report submitted to the legislature. Quantifiable data required Number of months after receipt of financial statements by SAI that audit reports relating to budget execution are presented to the legislature. Information sources Auditor General, corroborated by Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and civic interest groups.

  9. Dimension (ii)- Rating criteria A. Audit reports are submitted to legislature within 4 months of end of period covered & in the case of financial statements from their receipt by the auditor. B. Audit reports are submitted to legislature within 8 months of end of period covered and in the case of financial statements from their receipt by the auditor. C. Audit reports are submitted to legislature within 12 months of end of period covered (for audit of financial statements from their receipt by the auditors). D. Audit reports are submitted to legislature more than 12 months from end of period covered (for audit of financial statements from their receipt by the auditors).

  10. Dimension (iii) Evidence of follow up on audit recommendations. • Key questions 1. Are audit recommendations from SAI to entities audited addressed by management? 2. Is there any clear evidence of timely & systematic follow up on these recommendations?

  11. Dimension (iii) Coverage Central government incl. all MDAs and AGAs. Critical period/time Last FY audited. Quantifiable data required Information sources Auditor General and Internal Auditors of major MDAs and AGAs, corroborated by Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and civic interest groups.

  12. Dimension (iii)- Rating criteria A. There is clear evidence of effective and timely follow up. B. A formal response is made in a timely manner, but there is little evidence of systematic follow up. C. A formal response is made, though delayed or not very thorough, but there is little evidence of any follow up. D. There is little evidence of response or follow up.

  13. Past Assessment: PI-26: D+ • Explanation of Score (i) Central Government entities representing at least 75% of total expenditures are audited annually, at least covering revenue and expenditure. A wide range of financial audits are performed and generally adhere to auditing standards, focusing on significant and systemic issues. (B) (ii) Audit reports are submitted to the legislature more than 12 months from the end of the period covered (for audit of financial statements from their receipt by the auditors). (D) (iii) A formal response is made, though delayed or not very thorough, but there is little evidence of any follow-up. (C )

  14. ;+;bdf ah]6 sfg"gpk/ 5nkmn • ljlgof]hg ljw]os k|:t'tug'{ k"j{ ljlgof]hg ljw]ossf l;4fGt / k|fyldstf -s/ k|:tfjafx]s_ 5nkmn x'g]M !% lbgcufj} • cy{ dGqLn] /fhZj / Joosf] jflif{s cg'dfg k]z ug]{ • vr{ s6f}tLsf] k|:tfj • /fhZj / Joosf] jflif{s cg'dfgpk/ 5nkmnM klxn] ;dfGo 5nkmn, kl5 lj:t[t 5nkmn x'g], k|To]s zLif{sdfly 5'6\6} jf ;d'lxs[t 5nkmn x'g], blno ;+/rgfcg';f/M ;efdfx'g], ;ldltdfghfg]

  15. vr{ s6f}tLsf] k|:tfj • zLif{ssf] vr{ /sdnfO{ 36fO{ Ps ?k}of ul/of];M zLif{sdflglxtgLltdfc;xdlt, vf; gLltdfdfq 5nkmn x'g] • zLif{ssf] vr{ /sddfpNn]lvtvr{ /sd 36fOof];\M ldtJolotfcanDagug{, zLif{ssf] /sd 36fpg] jfzLif{s vf/]h ug]{ • zLif{ssf] vr{ /sddf Ps ;o ?k}of 36fOof];\M g]kfn ;/sf/sf] hjfkmb]xLsf] If]qdflrQga'e]msf]

  16. PI-27 Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget law. • Dimensions to be assessed (Scoring method M1) (i) Scope of the legislature's scrutiny. (ii) Extent to which the legislature's procedures are well-established and respected. (iii) Adequacy of time for the legislature to provide a response to budget proposals both the detailed estimates and, where applicable, for proposals on macro-fiscal aggregates earlier in the budget preparation cycle (time allowed in practice for all stages combined). (iv) Rules for in-year amendments to the budget without ex-ante approval by the legislature.

  17. Dimension (i) Scope of the legislature's scrutiny. • Key questions 1. Is there a functioning legislature? 2. What budget documents are presented to legislature? 3. Are budget documents reviewed by legislature? 4. If yes, is legislative review limited or detailed? 5. If detailed, does legislature review cover expenditures & revenues, fiscal policies, medium-term fiscal framework & medium term priorities?

  18. Dimension (i) Scope of the legislature's scrutiny. Coverage Budgetary central government. Critical period/time Last completed FY. Quantifiable data required Information sources Budget Director, Secretary or Chair of budget committee(s) of Parliament, corroborated by civic interest groups.

  19. Dimension (i)-Rating criteria A. The legislature's review covers fiscal policies, medium term fiscal framework and medium term priorities as well as details of expenditure and revenue. B. The legislature's review covers fiscal policies and aggregates for the coming year as well as detailed estimates of expenditure and revenue. C. The legislature's review covers details of expenditure and revenue, but only at a stage where detailed proposals have been finalized. D. The legislature's review is non-existent or extremely limited, OR there is no functioning legislature.

  20. Dimension (ii) Extent to which the legislature's procedures are well-established and respected. • Key questions 1. Are procedures for legislative review established and are they mandated by legislation? 2. If yes, are they comprehensive? 3. Do they include internal organizational arrangements such as specialized review committees, & negotiation procedures? 4. Are the current procedures for legislative review respected by both the committee members and the government?

  21. Dimension (ii) Coverage Budgetary central government. Critical period/time Last completed FY. Quantifiable data required Information sources Respective Legislative Committees, corroborated by civic interest groups.

  22. Dimension (ii)-Rating criteria A. The legislature's procedures for budget review are firmly established and respected. They include internal organizational arrangements, such as specialized review committees, and negotiation procedures. B. Simple procedures exist for the legislature's budget review and are respected. C. Some procedures exist for the legislature's budget review, but they are not comprehensive and only partially respected. D. Procedures for the legislature's review are non-existent or not respected.

  23. Dimension (iii) Adequacy of time for the legislature to provide a response to budget proposals both the detailed estimates and, where applicable, for proposals on macro-fiscal aggregates earlier in the budget preparation cycle (time allowed in practice for all stages combined).

  24. Dimension (iii) • Key question • How much time is allowed for the legislature's review (less than one month, at least one month, at least two months)? • Coverage Budgetary central government. • Critical period/time Last completed FY. • Quantifiable data required Number of days the legislature has to review the detailed budget proposals and, if applicable, any earlier review of proposed macro-fiscal aggregates. • Information sources Respective Legislative Committees, corroborated by civic interest groups.

  25. Dimension (iii)-Rating criteria A. The legislature has at least two months to review the budget proposals. B. The legislature has at least one month to review the budget proposals. C. The legislature has at least one month to review the budget proposals. D. The time allowed for the legislature's review is clearly insufficient for a meaningful debate (significantly less than one month).

  26. Dimension (iv) Rules for in-year amendments to the budget without ex-ante approval by the legislature • Key questions 1. Are there any legal & procedural rules that govern in-year budget amendments by the executive? 2. If yes, how clear are these rules? 3. Do they allow extensive administrative reallocation as well as expansion of total expenditure or do they set strict limits on the extent and nature of amendments? 4. Are they always respected?

  27. Dimension (iv) Coverage Budgetary central government. Critical period/time Last completed FY. Quantifiable data required Information sources Respective Legislative Committees, corroborated by civic interest groups.

  28. Dimension (iv)-Rating criteria A. Clear rules exist for in-year budget amendments by the executive, set strict limits on extent and nature of amendments and are consistently respected. B. Clear rules exist for in-year budget amendments by the executive, and are usually respected, but they allow extensive administrative reallocations. C. Clear rules exist, but they may not always be respected OR they may allow extensive administrative reallocation as well as expansion of total expenditure. D. Rules regarding in-year budget amendments may exist but are either very rudimentary and unclear OR they are usually not respected.

  29. Past Assessment: PI-27: D+ • Explanation of Score (i) The legislature’s review covers details of expenditure and revenue but only at a stage where detailed proposals have been finalized. (C) (ii) Procedures for the legislature's review are non-existent or not respected. (D) (iii) The time allowed for the legislature's review is clearly insufficient for a meaningful debate (significantly less than one month). (D) (iv) Clear rules exist for in-year budget amendments by the executive and are usually respected, but they allow extensive administrative reallocations. (B)

  30. ;fj{hlgs n]vf ;ldlt Joj:yflksf–;+;bdf k]z ul/Psf] dxfn]vf k/LIfssf] jflif{s k|ltj]bgdf plNnlvt a]?h'sf] hfFr u/L dxfn]vf k/LIfsåf/f eP u/]sf sfd sf/afxL / ;f] ;DaGwdf ;DalGwt lgsfoaf6 x'g' kg]{ sfd sf/afxL sfg"g ;Ët / cf}lrTok"0f{ tj/af6 eP gePsf] ;DaGwdf ;d]t cWoog u/L cfjZos lg0f{o ug]{ / hfFr ug{ pko'Qm b]lvPsf] cGo ;fj{hlgs n]vfsf] hfFr u/L jflif{s cg'dfg k]z ug'{ cufj} ;efdf k|ltj]bg k]z ug]{ .

  31. PI-28 Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports. • Dimensions to be assessed (Scoring method M1) (i) Timeliness of examination of audit reports by the legislature (for reports received within the last three years). (ii) Extent of hearings on key findings undertaken by the legislature. (iii) Issuance of recommended actions by the legislature and implementation by the executive.

  32. Dimension (i) Timeliness of examination of audit reports by the legislature • Key questions 1. Do current legislation &/or existing procedures establish any deadlines for review of audit reports by legislature? 2. When examination of audit reports takes place by legislature, how long does it take in practice for to complete this examination (more than 12, within 12, 6 or 3 months from receipt of reports)? 3. Was duration of examination of audit reports by legislature same on all audit reports received during last 3 FYs?

  33. Dimension (i) Coverage Central government incl. all MDAs and AGAs. Critical period/time Audit reports submitted to legislature within the last 3 years. Quantifiable data required Average number of months following submission of external audit reports to the legislature before specialized committee completes examination of the reports, for the last year. Information sources Respective Legislative Committees, Auditor General and MOF, corroborated by civic interest groups. Secretary or Chair of budget committee of parliament

  34. Dimension (i)-Rating criteria A. Scrutiny of audit reports is usually completed by the legislature within 3 months from receipt of the reports. B. Scrutiny of audit reports is usually completed by the legislature within 6 months from receipt of the reports. C. Scrutiny of audit reports is usually completed by the legislature within 12 months from receipt of the reports. D. Examination of audit reports by the legislature does not take place or usually takes more than 12 months to complete.

  35. Dimension (ii) Extent of hearings on key findings undertaken by the legislature. • Key questions 1. What action does legislature take with respect to key findings in audit reports (eg. hearings which require members of executive to answer questions or to bring evidence)? 2. Does the legislative committee have technical assistance , eg. from the SAI, in undertaking their scrutiny? 3. Do in-depth hearings on key findings take place occasionally, on a routine basis, or consistently? 4. Do in-depth hearings take place with responsible officers from all audited entities on which audit report raises queries?

  36. Dimension (ii) Coverage Central government incl. all MDAs and AGAs. Critical period/time Last 12 months. Quantifiable data required Information sources Respective Legislative Committees, Auditor General and MOF, corroborated by civic interest groups. Secretary or Chair of budget committee of parliament

  37. Dimension (ii)-Rating criteria A. In-depth hearings on key findings take place consistently with responsible officers from all or most audited entities, which receive a qualified or adverse audit opinion. B. In-depth hearings on key findings take place with responsible officers from the audited entities as a routine, but may cover only some of the entities, which received a qualified or adverse audit opinion. C. In-depth hearings on key findings take place occasionally, cover only a few audited entities or may include with ministry of finance officials only. D. No in-depth hearings are conducted by the legislature.

  38. Dimension (iii) Issuance of recommended actions by the legislature and implementation by the executive. • Key questions 1. Does law require actions to be taken with respect to recommendations of legislative review? 2. In practice, are recommendations being issued by legislature? 3. Is there any evidence that recommendations are acted on by the executive?

  39. Dimension (iii) Coverage Central government incl. all MDAs and AGAs. Critical period/time Last 12 months. Quantifiable data required Information sources Respective Legislative Committees, Auditor General and MOF, corroborated by civic interest groups. Secretary or Chair of budget committee of parliament

  40. Dimension (iii)-Rating criteria A. The legislature usually issues recommendations on action to be implemented by the executive, and evidence exists that they are generally implemented. B. Actions are recommended to the executive, some of which are implemented, according to existing evidence. C. Actions are recommended, but are rarely acted upon by the executive. D. No recommendations are being issued by the legislature.

  41. Past Assessment: PI-28: D+ • Explanation of Score (i) Examination of audit reports by the legislature does not take place or usually takes more than 12 months to complete. (D) (ii) In-depth hearings on key findings take place occasionally, cover only a few audited entities or may include with MOF officials only. (C) (iii) Actions are recommended but are rarely acted upon by the executive. (C)

  42. Way forward • Timely submission of Annual budget in Parliament • Discussion on budget law in Parliament • Implementation of Audit Report • Submission of Annual Report to Parliament • Timely discussion on PAC • Record or minute of PAC decision • Implementation and follow up of PAC decision

  43. Way forward • Reform in Internal Audit • Financial Audit: Internal Audit • Performance, Risk based Audit: External Audit • Capacity strengthening of OAG, FCGO, DTCO, PAC • Alternative provision in absence of PAC • Account Committee in Central level Offices • Time for submission of Consolidated Financial statement

  44. Way forward • Mandate of AG: VDC, Municipality, Public School, Entities funded from Consolidated Fund • Updating Manuals • Communication Policy: Distribution of Audit Report • Prioritization of Audit Findings

  45. Any Question?Thanks for your kind attention!

More Related