Politicians everywhere just love preaching about good governance, transparency and accountability.

Much of what they say makes sense, but when they are in power they very often do not follow up their commitments with the kind of determination required to check shortcomings in these three key principles that make for smooth and correct running of an administration.

It takes time for good governance, transparency and accountability to take root, and this is the case not just in a country’s central administration but in other areas of life, particularly, for instance, in local councils.

In its Budget for this year, the government stressed expenditure consolidation measures and announced it was committed to continue reviewing its expenditure programme through a comprehensive spending review. With its commitment to bring the deficit below the three per cent threshold required under EU rules, the need for expenditure consolidation and control is self-explanatory.

An annual report that invariably throws light on control weaknesses is that of the Auditor General, a publication that is not drawing as much attention as it used to.

Yet, the contrary ought to be the case. Greater savings will be made, and transparency and accountability shown, if those responsible in central and local government follow the rules. Unfortunately, there are always laggards and people who choose to ignore established conditions.

In his last report, the Auditor General again reports “substantial excess of actual over budgeted figures of various items of expenditure’’. What is worrying is the cases were identical to those reported last year. The report said explanations for these reoccurrences were being noted accordingly and a detailed statement showing outstanding advances made to government departments, agencies and organisations was being provided, including plans to settle such amounts.

But why should there be such cases in the first place? Should not adequate controls be in place all the time? When it explained its expenditure consolidation measures in the Budget, the government said each ministry was being assisted to identify cost savings through the elimination of waste and other inefficiencies, as well as facilitating the exchange of good practices and incentives to ensure that the country’s finances are improved.

This is all to the good, but the exercise would need to be carried out on an ongoing basis so that good administrative practices get established. The Auditor General reports disturbing instances of lack of adequate control. For instance, at the tourism authority, the audit office found internal control in various areas was weak or entirely lacking. It also found weak budgetary control on overtime, variances in basic pay and incomplete or unreliable manual records at certain tourist offices.

An audit of social security benefits found practices and procedures that created unnecessary overpayments. Even more frustrating perhaps is the Auditor’s remark that “considerable overpayments were created due to lack of cooperation between... government entities”.

This is unacceptable, as is the situation in many local councils. No fewer than 32 councils and a regional committee registered a deficit in the statement of comprehensive revenue, and 57 councils and four regional committees were qualified with an “except for” audit opinion.

This is one area where the government can rest assured it will get full national backing for any action meant to check such shortcomings. After all, it is the taxpayer’s money that is being wasted through such weaknesses.