However much the media lambasts the government of the day over shortcomings pinpointed by the Auditor General in his annual report, there is usually nary a whisper from official quarters to the criticism levelled at the ministries and departments, at least publicly. This has generally been the case so far and it is most unlikely that it will ever change, unless, that is, there is a strong public reaction to the endless number of shortcomings revealed in each and every report presented by the Auditor. The problem is that public reaction is so weak that the story repeats itself, in some form or other, time and time again. Yet, the matters the Auditor raises ought to be of direct concern to all because, in his own words, the report identifies "a number of issues that need to be addressed by responsible entities so as to ensure better use of public funds and an enhanced service delivery".

Ensuring better use of public funds ought to be observed at all times and it would be doubly scandalous if no sufficient regard is taken of the Auditor's recommendations, especially now when the country can least afford to waste any of the taxpayers' money. It is not that all recommendations are ignored; they are not but the extent of the shortcomings listed in every report indicates serious lack of accountability. It is difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate all shortcomings in such a large organisation as the public service but, clearly, a range of the deficiencies listed could easily be checked if the rules and regulations are followed.

Take, for example, the return of arrears which ministries, departments and entities are required to submit to the Treasury annually. In his review of the situation over revenue arrears, the Auditor General points out that the timely collection of revenue and control over arrears of revenue is the responsibility of accounting officers. A Treasury circular says that "since the collection of monies due to the government is a fundamental need for the execution of government's programme, accounting officers will be held accountable for any shortfalls". Yet, few submit the return on time.

The Inland Revenue Department has not submitted its arrears return since 2002 and, according to the Auditor General's report, is not in a position to quantify the amounts due by employers on a yearly and accumulative basis. There is also lack of enforcement measures in place to collect the amounts of social security outstanding. No prompt action in the form of official reminders, demand notices and judicial letters were taken in some of the cases reviewed by the Auditor. Are those responsible for all this being held accountable?

Another important matter raised by the Auditor General is over the variations between budgeted and actual amounts. In his view, the variance analysis systems in use at both ministries and departments needed to be improved "as evidenced by the substantial excesses of actual over revised budgets registered under certain items of expenditure". The budget for school transport was exceeded and several shortcomings were noted in the attendance records kept by the Investment Ministry and in the keeping of control over duties and work performed by part-time consultants to various ministries.

The list of shortcomings 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.