A safe pair of hands... for some

As far as reports go, it's a fairly ignominious one. The guardian of our public purse has once again gone through the onerous task of presenting yet another damning account. The Auditor General's report yet again paints a picture of an arrogant government more concerned with taking care of its own - who get all the security the government's promised safe pair of hands can offer - than with protecting public interest.

The Auditor General's report contains numerous criticisms of government practices, particularly in areas where a value for money audit was conducted. The common thread throughout the report is that the government's systems and procedures do not ensure that, to put it kindly, public money is being properly spent.

This newspaper's editorial of some days ago, affirmed that "The list of shortcomings (in the Auditor General's report) goes on and on, enough for one to seriously question the extent to which officers responsible for them are held accountable. Ensuring better use of public funds requires strict discipline in following procedure at all levels. This is not being done".

The Auditor General's report tells us of consultants' contracts bearing names which do not tally with the names of the consultants engaged. It informs us about undated contracts. It also lets us know of how some ministries didn't even bother to answer a questionnaire sent by the Auditor General's Office so that it will be able to analyse the briefs of consultants engaged by the same ministries. In other instances the consultants' contracts were not presented to the Auditor General at all, even though it was demanded of them to submit said contracts.

It transpired, from cases which the Auditor General could examine, that certain consultants were not given any terms of reference and thus they could not be held accountable for what they did or didn't do. Even the way these consultants were engaged raised the Auditor General's suspicion. In other instances, it turned out that consultants were being paid more than was stipulated in their contract. Who and what is behind this? Isn't this tantamount to stealing public funds, the taxes which honest, hard-working citizens contribute?

Maybe it is about time that the law, under which the Auditor General operates, is revised and that we should consider giving it power to prosecute thieves of public funds. Isn't it an exercise in futility to spend money on finding out what has been stolen without doing anything about the reported thefts? White collar crime is often overlooked and in many instances not considered as crime at all. Edwin Sutherland, the first sociologist to study this phenomenon and who coined the phrase white-collar crime, defined it as "a crime committed by persons of high social status and respectability in the course of their occupations".

Since our law does not give the Auditor General the power to prosecute, the Audit Office can only audit and report its findings to Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) then deliberates on questions raised by the Auditor General and summons those responsible to provide explanations to the queries contained in the Auditor General's report. If the opposition members on the PAC are not convinced with some explanation or other and asked for a vote, they are outvoted by the government members.

There is then some public discussion on the report, after which, all is forgotten. This, until the next Auditor General's report, which will again contain glaring abuses of public funds. There is a fuss once the report is issued. The independent and anti-government media have a field day, or a field week, at most. And the government invariably rises from the furnace and threatens to cause some serious burns. Unscathed by the damning report the government has the escape plan ready: let them talk. Do nothing about it. All will soon be forgotten. And, to continue making a mockery of the situation, the Prime Minister recently presented us with three booklets: A Good Governance Framework For Organisations In The Public Sector; A Code Of Ethics For Board Directors In The Public Sector; and The National Strategy Against Fraud And Corruption.

Instead of churning out literature - which most people take with bagfuls of salt when they compare it to the political masters' inertia when it comes to good governance - it's high time the government takes the Auditor General's reports seriously and acts upon them. Up to now, those who misappropriate public funds have the peace of mind that they can rely on the inaction of a safe pair of hands.

I wish the editor, staff and readers of the Times a healthy and happy 2009.

The author is a Labour member of Parliament.