home

Welcome to the PaNPAC Wiki!

You can join the conversation at #PacificNPAC



Annual PaNPAC Meeting | 7-9 November, 2016
Honiara, Solomon Islands


2016-11 Sol Islands.jpg


Meeting Proceedings:


PaNPAC Solomon Islands Meeting, 2016
The agendas of the 3rd PaNPAC Meeting in Honiara Solomon Islands from the 7th to the 9th November includes discussions on the conductions of;
a. Pre- Budget Consultations
b. Public Inquiries
c. Standardization and setting baseline for Committee practices
d. Government indicator and
e. Performance Audits


Parking Lot
The participants have also created a space as a “Parking Lot” to jot down ideas and documents that they would need to later provide and get it uploaded to the PaNPAC wiki page for reference by all members. Some of these documents and ideas includes;
a. Samoan’s PFM Act
b. Tuvalu’s Finance Act
c. Tonga’s Report to PaNPAC
d. Solomon Islands Legislative Framework
e. Cook Islands’ Standing Orders ( In particular the sections which requires MPs to report to the Speaker)
f. Samoa’s report on “Non- performing MPs”
g. Cook Islands Public Expenditures Act and
h. A suggest to extend the identified training on “Catch phrases” for speeches.

2016-11 Parking Lot.jpg


Activities
Suggested activities that all PaNPAC members are required to work on until the next meeting are listed as follows;
- Liaise with PASAI and request if a PaNPAC Member can participate and make presentation in during PASAI’s next conference in Vanuatu.
- Identify good practice principles for next meeting’s case study
- PAC’s to fine tune relationships with their SAI
- Collate and prepare a report of on reforms they have attested to since the inauguration of PaNPAC
- Development and design an ideal PaNPAC organizational structure
- Inquire and get clarity on Travel Policies for PaNPAC Members and clerks when attending to PaNPAC Meetings from CPA, World Bank and local legislature.
- Organize and notify on on-going capacity building for PACs.


PaNpac Focal Areas

PaNPAC’s focal areas for discussion in the next coming meeting includes;
a. Having in place a Manual with principles of good practices for Committee as a benchmark for pacific Public Accounts Committees.
b. Identify and develop specific programs and workshops for capacity building
c. Ensure PACs venture into investigating also performance audit apart from financial audits
d. Committee Inquires – strategizing how to ask whether the public got VFM from a department
e. Cultivating the community of Pacific PACs Secretaries
f. Developing and designing PaNPAC’s organizational structure

2016-11 PaNPAC Focus Areas.jpg



Next Meeting

PaNPAC’s fourth meeting will be hosted by Samoa in 2017.

Issues face by the Pacific Community of Public Accounts Committees



Mandate and Power
1. There is still elements of an overlapping responsibilities with Public Expenditures Committee in some legislatures.
2. There is evidently no discipline powers stipulated in the Standing Orders by which the Committee can employ actions for matters of contempt to the Committee.
3. There is generally a greater need for clearer mandates on the roles and powers of PACs in all legislatures.
4. The powers of Committees may be limited for conductions of oversight on the expenditure of special public funds since they may not be obligatory for auditing (e.g. disaster funds)
5. Most legislatures are without a PAC Legislative Framework (PAC Act) from which they can be empowered to deploy their role without impediments.
6. All legislatures agreed to the notions that “PACs can shape or shake the Government!”
Relationship with the Office of the Auditor General
1. There yet rooms for improvement on the relationships between the PACs and the Office of the Auditor General offices. If possible, a collaboration on Annual Work Plans may benefit the roles of both parties.
Structure and Organization
1. Most Committee Members are unsure on the appointment processes of their Committee Membership.
2. The Legislature(s) has a duty to clarify the appointment processes to their Committee Members.
3. There is still an inconsistence on the composition of PACs.
Political Representation
1. It has been a practice by some legislatures to have Ministers on Committees – a topic for debate by the participating legislatures
2. There is little or an absence of discipline forms for Committee Members.
Term of office
1. The Committee remains the venue for a “Watch Dog” on the reigning Government.
Activities
1. Most Legislatures are still without a Parliamentary Calendar which does not compliment Committee Activities and Planning.
2. There is evidently a minimal implementation of Committee recommendations, which gave doubts to Committee Members on their legislative roles and efforts.
3. Some Committee Members are more influential than others, which may at times sway the resolutions of the Committee.
4. There is still a non-compliance to Timeframe for tabling of required papers and bills by the government (e.g. Appropriation Bills).
5. There a need for a more robust Parliamentary Civic Education and awareness.
Performance
1. “Conflict of interest” on certain issues may by an obstacle to Committee investigations
2. Financial literacy is paramount for a sound deliver on their Committee roles by Committee Members and clerks.
3. There is a lack for continual capacity building in all legislatures
4. There is still room for improves on the current lack of sound and proper planning for most legislatures.
Resources
1. Committee are yet to be resourced adequately with Finance and necessary Infrastructure
2. The Educational background and literacy savvy of the Committee Composition determines the activeness of the Committee.
3. Most Committees cannot roll out all planned activities due to Budgetary constrains
4. Some Legislatures do provide incidentals for Committee sittings, while others do not.
5. Thus it was suggested that appropriate remunerations of Sitting allowance and entitlements for performing Committee Roles can be an incentives for positive participation by Committee Members.



2016-11 Matrix Sol Islands.jpg

Mapping the Characterizes of the Pacific Community of Public Accounts Committees


Matrix by Individual Legislatures(Cook Islands / Fiji)
Color Indicators:
Green: Working Well
Yellow: Need Improvements/ In Progress


Red: Not Working Well


Cook Islands
Fiji
Mandate and Power
Mandate and Power
(Yellow)
Mandate and Powers - 3,4,5 & 6
(Yellow)
Mandate and Powers - 1,2,7,8,9 &10
(Red)
Relationship with the Office of the Auditor General
Relationship with the OAG
(Green)
Relationship with OAG
(Yellow)
Structure and Organization
Structure and organization
(Green)
Structure and organization ; Committee Members should exclude A/M and Ministers
(Red)
Structure & Organization - Committee seem to work well with 5 – 11 Members
(Yellow)
Political Representation
Political Representation
(Yellow)
Political Representation - 3
(Yellow)
Political Representation - Senior Opposition figures should be Chairs of the Committees - 1,4& 5
(Red)
Term of Office
Term of Office
(Green)
Term of Office - Committee is appointed for a full terms of Parliament - 5
(Green)
Activities
Activities
( Yellow)
Activities - 1,2,3,4 & 5
(Yellow)
Performance
Performance
(Yellow)
Performance - Committee is yet to device this (Red)
Resources
Resources
(Yellow)
Resources - 1,2 & 3
(Red)


Matrix by Individual Legislatures (cont.)(Nauru/ Samoa)
Color Indicators:
Green: Working Well
Yellow: Need Improvements/ In Progress
Red: Not Working Well


Nauru
Samoa
Mandate and Power
Mandate and Power - Government is keen to support the Committee
(Green)
Mandate and Powers - Rules and Acts of Parliament empowers Committee
(Green)
Mandate and Powers – PAC Members have a common understanding and articulation of PAC’s mandate and roles and powers
(Green)

PAC Members have a sound understanding of how PAC’s powers are used and applied
(Green)

Rules and Acts of Parliament should allow for regular review and updating of PAC’s mandate to ensure that it remains adequate and relevant to the current political and legislative context
(Yellow)
Relationship with the Office of the Auditor General
Relationship with OAG
Auditor’s reports are often delayed, detaining PAC to carry out Inquires
(Red)
Relationship with OAG
Auditor’s reports are referred to the Committee and the AG meets with the Committee on his reports
(Green)
Structure and Organization
Structure and Organization
Not to standard as due to being new
(Red)
Structure & Organization
Committee Membership are from the Government backbencher and only 1 from the Opposition
(Green)


Political Representation
Political Representation
Most Members are Vice Ministers, hence are not fully Committed to the role
(Red)
Political Representation
Senior Opposition figures associated well with PAC, the Chair is a senior MP – hence a fair and adequate participation by the Opposition
(Green)
Term of Office
Term of Office
The Committee has ample time to consider and work on issues
(Green)
Term of Office –
Appointed for the full terms of Parliament (Green)
Activities
Activities
No activity in place as yet
(Red)
Activities
Met regularly and frequently
(Green)


Performance
Performance
Committee is new and have not met yet
(Red)
Performance
Committee should assess its performance annually
Red)
Resources
Resources
The Auditor General is yet to provide documents and support to the Committee
(Red)
Resources
The Committee should be involved in devising their own budget
(Yellow)

Specialized trainings should be provided to new PAC Members
(Yellow)

Committee is adequately staffed with an experience clerk
(Blue)



Matrix by Individual Legislatures (cont.)(Solomon Islands/ Tonga)
Color Indicators:
Green: Working Well
Yellow: Need Improvements/ In Progress
Red: Not Working Well


Solomon Islands
Tonga
Mandate and Power
Mandate and Power - Government is Need for a specific legislation to farther empower the role of PAC
(Red)

No established procedures for monitoring the government’s implementation of Committee’s recommendation
(Red)
Mandate and Powers
A legislative frame is proposed to safeguard the mandate of PAC
(Green)
Relationship with the Office of the Auditor General
Relationship with OAG
The Committee is benefitting from the relationship with the OAG – which sees to the AG as the secretary to PAC by virtues of the Standing Orders
(Green)
Relationship with OAG
Work in progress to establish the OAG under the Office of the Speaker of Parliament
(Green)
Structure and Organization
Structure and Organization
The Size of the Committee is adequate for it to carry out its duty
(Green)

A need for a written statement on the roles and responsibilities of the Chairman and Members
(Yellow)
Structure & Organization
(Green)


Political Representation
Political Representation
No clear description on the role and responsibility of the Chairman or Members
(Yellow)

Exercise Bipartisan composition of Committees
(Green)
Political Representation
(Green)
Term of Office
Term of Office
Instability makes appointments/ duration/ tenure ship unpredictable
(Yellow)

Lack of capacity development resulted in unsustainable outcomes
(Yellow)
Term of Office –
(Green)
Activities
Activities
Adequate support from the Committee Secretariat/ Library and Research
(Green)

Committee Hearings are live televised and broadcasted
(Green)

Held regular inquiri3es
(Green)
Activities
(Red)


Performance
Performance
An absence of a Performance Framework
(Red)
Performance
Red)
Resources
Resources
Not being able to develop its own budget and request for required specialized trainings
(Red)
Resources
(Red)

Matrix by Individual Legislatures (cont.)(Tuvalu)
Color Indicators:
Green: Working Well
Yellow: Need Improvements/ In Progress
Red: Not Working Well


Tuvalu

Mandate and Power
Mandate and Power
A draft legislation for PAC is in place
(Green)

Relationship with the Office of the Auditor General
Relationship with OAG
The Auditor’s Reports are automatically referred to the Committees
(Green)

Structure and Organization
Structure and Organization
A need for farther clarity on the Committee’s roles and responsibly
(Red)

Political Representation
Political Representation
(Green)

Term of Office
Term of Office
(Yellow)



Activities
Activities
(Yellow)

Performance
Performance
A need for a performance contract for the Chairman
(Red)

Resources
Resources
PAC should unconditionally have access to all government agencies
(Yellow)


Meeting Documents





Meeting Participants





Day 3 - Wednesday, November 9


Time
Activity
08:30
Opening

Review of day 1 from different reflection groups
09:00
Independence of the SAI

Learning objective: The main objective of this session is to share the experience of the Solomon Islands regarding the relationship between the SAI and the PAC, especially on SAI independence. Input from AG and Contractor General, if available.
  • How can PaNPAC contribute knowledge and practice to the PASAI submission to the upcoming Pacific Constitutions Research Network Conference in Vanuatu?
Methodology: Following the presentations from the Auditor General and Contractor General, participants will be divided in small group to reflect on how the Jamaican experience compares in their own jurisdiction and what would they like to see happen. A questions and answers session will follow.
Discussion leads: SI Auditor General / Contractor General, Mitchell O'Brien, Senior Governance Specialist/ Parliaments, World Bank
1030
Break
11:00
Relationship with Media and CSO

Learning objective: Similarly, this session will share the experience of the Solomon Islands regarding the relationship between the media, CSOs and SAIs with input from someone from media and CSO

Methodology: Following the presentations from the media and CSOs, participants will be divided in small group to reflect on how the Solomon Islands experience compares in their own jurisdictions from purpose to principles, participants, and practices. Where do we go from here? What productive approaches can be adopted? A questions and answers session will follow.
Discussion leads: TBC
12:30
Lunch
13:30
Parallel sessions

Learning objective:
  • Members: The main objectives for the members will be to discuss indicators of progress.
  • Clerk community: The objectives for the clerks will be threefold: 1) what are our priorities, 2) how can we help each other, 3) how will we measure our success?

Methodology: Parallel sessions where each group appoints a rapporteur to share key feedback with the plenary at the following session.

Discussion leads: TBC
15:00
Break
15:30
Report back

Learning objective: Following the parallel sessions, rapporteurs from each jurisdiction report back and commitments are captured onto a timeline. Another objective of this closing session will be for the core group to renew commitment and recruit new members. Lastly, a timeline for the following year is produced.

Methodology: After reporting back, participants from same jurisdiction meet and discuss next steps for the jurisdiction. Based on the feedback, the facilitator will produce a timeline on the wall.

Discussion leads: Rapporteurs;
17:00
Close


Day 2 - Tuesday, November 8


Meeting documents:


Comparative Analysis of Pacific Public Accounts Committees (PACs) in the Pacific Regions:





Programme: Tuesday, November 8



Time
Activity
08:00
Opening session
Speakerofthe House:Minister of Finance:PAC Chair:Greetings from the CPA:Greetings from the World Bank:
08:30
Welcome
Learning objective: The opening session aims to provide Network members an overview of what is to be expected as well as provide a review of the previous meetings and outcomes. It will also give some more details on the meeting to the newcomers. This session will also set the tone for the importance of value-creation that the meeting will have.
09:00
Value-creation Framework
Learning objective: This session will look into considering the value-creation of the CarNPAC network in a systematic way.
Methodology: A framework for monitoring and evaluating the value-creation of the network will be introduced.
09:30
Getting to know the PAC landscape in the Pacific network
Learning objectives:Rounds 1 – 3: These first rounds will consist of introductions to see who is attending, catching up,update on priority issues as well as to welcome newcomers.
Round 4: This round will look into what are the key practices participants want to know about how things work in other jurisdictions. Expanding on the Fiji Core Group priorities:
- Capacity building- Performance audits- Community of Secretaries- Work planning- Regional standardization- PaNPAC structure

Report back: At the end of the session delegations will agree on the key practices (up to 10) of the landscape it would be useful to find out about each other.
Methodology:
  • Café conversations. People doodle and writekey wordsontableclothwith table host on each table. Rounds of about 15 minutes each.
  • In round 4 the group talks about the key questions they have about each other’s’ practices and the benchmarks they think would be useful to benchmark across jurisdictions.
  • Wholegroup agrees on key practices or benchmarks. These questions/components/benchmarks will appear in the initial column of a large matrix on the wall.

Break: Coffee is served at convenient point during above activity
11:30
Capturing the PAC landscape in the Pacific Region
Learning objective: This session aims to surface PAC practice in the region.
Methodology: Participants will write a brief note about what they do: using green paper for something they think they do well, red they don’t do it at all, and blue for issues they would like some help. Each jurisdiction will complete the relevant column in the landscape matrix. Each of the delegations will have 2 minutes to report on the highlight of their column.
13:00
Lunch
14:00
Analyzing the landscape in the Pacific Region
Learning objective: Following the surfacing ofgoodand non-satisfactory practice of PACs in the region, this session will seek to identify the places of strength within the network as well as its weaknesses. Participants will also be asked to answer what would they like to see most people in the region accomplish one year from now, three years from now.
Methodology: Pairs (or threes) analyze a row (across jurisdictions) and complete the final two boxes in the matrix for what they would like to see in one and three years.
Discussion leads: Mitchell O'Brien, Senior Governance Specialist/ Parliaments, World Bank
15:30
Break
16:00
Closing reflections and review of the day
Consolidate and review the day in small groups and prepare to report out tomorrow morning on the matrixes.
17:00
Close



Day 1 - Monday, November 7

Regional PAC Delegates met with the Comptroller and Staffs of the Customs and Exercise Department during the afternoon excursion



PaNPAC1 011.JPG

Regional PAC Delegates observed the Bills and Legislation Committe in session at the National Parliament Conference room

3rd PaNPAC Meeting -Observing BLC.jpg

PaNPAC Honiara Meeting. Core Group Pre-Meeting On Sunday Morning

3rd PaNPAC Meeting - Core Group Meeting.jpg


=

=
=

=

Honiara, Solomon Islands



contactus_img.jpg



Meeting overview


This meeting intends to build on the initial PaNPAC meetings in New Zealand and Fiji in order to strengthen the learning partnership of PACs in the region.

Specifically, the PaNPAC Regional Network Meeting aims to:

(i) Identify where in the region we are seeing the application of good practices
(ii) Explore how we can learn from each other’s successes and failures; and
(iii) Build consensus as to what progress looks like – for individual jurisdictions and the region as a whole

In addition, we will take the opportunity of being in the Solomon Islands to hear from different institutions that support their PAC, such as the Auditor General, Contractor General and representatives from the media and/or a civil society organization. Where can these partnerships be strengthened? What are the opportunities? What gets in the way? What opportunities are there to engage with other regional networks and community of practice, such as the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI)?

The core group will meet the day before to prepare for the meeting and take time after the meeting to reflect and prepare the next steps for strengthening the learning partnership in the region.

The meeting is being planned by the CarNPAC Core Group supported by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), the United Nations Development Program and the World Bank Group - have a look at the programme.







CORE GROUP MEETING, 15-17 JUNE 2016

The Core Group met at the Radisson Hotel, Denarau Island, Fiji. The objectives of the meeting were to:
  1. Share peer experiences and learning
  2. Use a planning and evaluation framework to create a vision for the value of the PaNPAC network
  3. Plan and start the next steps for preparing a PaNPAC network meeting in Q4 2016

family photo.jpg
PaNPAC Core Group Participants, 15-17 June, Fiji

You can access details of the meeting here.



BENCHMARKING AND SELF-ASSESSMENT FOR PARLIAMENTS


The World Bank Group has just published a free e-book on Benchmarking and Self-Assessment for Parliaments -
you can download it here

In addition, the World Bank has collaborated with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to identify global good practice for Public Accounts Committees. The publication is called "Following the Money" and the Annex provides a framework for PACs to develop Good Practice Guides for PACs and PAC Networks based on existing evidence related to PAC performance.


PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY (PEFA) FRAMEWORK

PEFA

You can find the web site here - is a tool for assessing the status of public financial management. A PEFA assessment provides a thorough, consistent and evidence-based analysis of PFM performance at a specific point in time. The PEFA methodology can be reapplied in successive assessments to track changes over time.
2016 marks the most comprehensive upgrade to the PEFA framework since it was first published in 2005:
PEFA 2016 Brochure.pdf
PEFA 2016 Brochure.pdf
PEFA 2016 Brochure.pdf
PEFA 2016.pdf
PEFA 2016.pdf
PEFA 2016.pdf

The PEFA framework provides the foundation for evidence-based measurement of countries’ PFM systems. A PEFA assessment measures the extent to which PFM systems, processes and institutions contribute to the achievement of desirable budget outcomes: aggregate fiscal discipline, strategic allocation of resources, and efficient service delivery.
The PEFA framework assesses and reports on the strengths and weaknesses of public financial management using 31 performance indicators that are further disaggregated into 94 dimensions.
The performance of each indicator and dimension is measured against a four point ordinal scale from A to D. The highest score, A, is warranted if evidence clearly demonstrates that an internationally-recognized level of good performance is achieved. The D score indicates that performance is below the basic level. Indicators with more than one dimension are scored according to either the lowest score amongst its dimensions (M1, the weakest link) or the average of its dimension scores (M2, average score).

The Seven Pillars

The 31 performance indicators are grouped into seven pillars of performance focusing on essential features of an effective PFM system which provide the foundation for a PEFA assessment. The pillars are:
  • Pillar 1: Budget Reliability
  • Pillar 2: Transparency
  • Pillar 3: Management of Assets and Liabilities
  • Pillar 4: Policy-based fiscal strategy and budgeting (PI-18)
  • Pillar 5: Predictability and Control in Budget Execution
  • Pillar 6: Accounting and Reporting
  • Pillar 7: External Scrutiny and Audit (PI-31)
PFM Ecosystem.png
PFM Ecosystem.png

Performance Indicators related to parliament are included in Pillar 4 and Pillar 7 Pillar 4: Policy-based fiscal strategy and budgeting The fiscal strategy and the budget are prepared with due regard to government fiscal policies, strategic plans, and adequate macroeconomic and fiscal projections.
Performance Indicator 18 - Legislative scrutiny of budgets The nature and scope of legislative scrutiny of the annual budget. It considers the extent to which the legislature scrutinizes, debates, and approves the annual budget, including the extent to which the legislature’s procedures for scrutiny are well established and adhered to.
PI-18 Dimensions
  • 18.1 Scope of budget scrutiny
  • 18.2 Legislative procedures for budget scrutiny
  • 18.3 Timing of budget approval
  • 18.4 Rules for budget adjustment by the executive
Pillar 7: External scrutiny and audit Public finances are independently reviewed and there is external follow-up on the implementation of recommendations for improvement by the executive.
Performance Indicator 31 - Legislative scrutiny of audit reports The extent to which legislative scrutiny of the audited financial reports of central government is timely, significant and transparent. It also assesses whether the legislature issues recommendations and follows up on their implementation.
PI-31 Dimensions
  • 31.1 Timing of audit report scrutiny
  • 31.2 Hearings on audit findings
  • 31.3 Recommendations on audit by the legislature
  • 31.4 Transparency of legislative scrutiny of audit reports

PEFA Field Guide 2012


The Field Guide arranges all the guidance material produced by the Secretariat for assessors to use when undertaking an assessment, dimension-by-dimension and also includes examples of presenting evidence for ratings.
The existing Fieldguide is not yet aligned to PEFA 2016; however, the guidance material for the old PI-11 and PI-28 (which are similar to PI-18 and PI-31 PEFA 2016) can be a useful reference when seeking to assess your PAC’s performance against PEFA 2016.

PI-11 (Previous PEFA Framework) Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process. While the Ministry of Finance (MOF) is usually the driver of the annual budget formulation process, effective participation in the budget formulation process by other ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) as well as the political leadership (the leadership of the executive, such as the Cabinet or equivalent body. Involvement of the legislative in review of budget proposals is covered by indicator PI-27) impacts the extent to which the budget will reflect macro-economic, fiscal and sector policies. Full participation requires an integrated top-down and bottom-up budgeting process, involving all parties in an orderly and timely manner, in accordance with a pre-determined budget formulation calendar. The calendar should allow for passing of the budget law before the start of the fiscal year as well as for sufficient time for the other MDAs to meaningfully prepare their detailed budget proposals as per the guidance. Delays in passing the budget may create uncertainty about the level of approved expenditures and delays in some government activities, including major contracts. Clear guidance on the budget process should be provided in the budget circular and budget formulation manual, including indicative budgetary ceilings for administrative units or functional areas.
In order to avoid last minute changes to budget proposals, it is important that the political leadership is actively involved in the setting of aggregate allocations (particularly for sectors or functions) from an early stage of the budget preparation process. This should be initiated through review and approval of the allocation ceilings in the budget circular, either by approving the budget circular or by approving a preceding proposal for aggregate allocations (e.g. in a budget outlook paper).

Dimensions to be assessed: (i). Existence of and adherence to a fixed budget calendar (ii). Clarity/comprehensiveness of and political involvement in the guidance on the preparation of budget submissions (budget circular or equivalent) (iii). Timely budget approval by the legislature or similarly mandated body (within the last three years).

Dimension (i) Existence of and adherence to a fixed budget calendar Key questions 1. Is a budget calendar prepared and adhered to? 2. Is the budget calendar clear? 3. How many weeks does the budget calendar allow to ministries, department and agencies (MDAs) to complete their detailed estimates?

Dimension (ii) Guidance on the preparation of budget submissions Key questions 1. Is a budget circular issued to MDAs? 2. Is the budget circular clear? 3. Does the budget circular include ceilings pre-approved by Cabinet? 4. If not, are Cabinet-approved ceilings notified in time for MDAs to amend their budget estimates? 5. Can the Cabinet still make adjustments to budget estimates before they are submitted to Parliament?

Dimension (iii) Timely budget approval by the legislature Key questions 1. During the last three fiscal years, was the budget approved before the start of the fiscal year? 2. If not, when was the budget approved each year (how many months into the year)?

PI-28 (Former PEFA Framework) - Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports. The legislature has a key role in exercising scrutiny over the execution of the budget that it approved. A common way in which this is done is through a legislative committee(s) or commission(s) that examines the external audit reports and questions responsible parties about the findings of the reports. The operation of the committee(s) will depend on adequate financial and technical resources, and on adequate time being allocated to keep up-to-date on reviewing audit reports. The committee may also recommend actions and sanctions to be implemented by the executive, in addition to adopting the recommendations made by the external auditors (ref. PI-26).

The focus in this indicator is on central government entities, including autonomous agencies to the extent that either (a) they are required by law to submit audit reports to the legislative or (b) their parent or controlling ministry/department must answer questions and take action on the agencies‟ behalf. Timeliness of the legislature’s scrutiny can be affected by a surge in audit report submissions, where external auditors are catching up on a backlog. In such situations, the committee(s) may decide to give first priority to audit reports covering the most recent reporting periods and audited entities that have a history of poor compliance. The assessment should favorably consider such elements of good practice and not be based on the resulting delay in scrutinizing reports covering more distant periods.

Dimensions to be assessed: (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.

Dimension (i) Timeliness of examination of audit reports by the legislature (for reports received within the last three years). 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?

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?

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?




About This Website

This website, or 'wiki', is a platform for all PaNPAC members to share resources, access documents, and collaborate with one another. We encourage you to add pages and content to the site to share information with your fellow members.
  • To browse the wiki, click on the pages on the navigation bar to the right.
  • To add content to the wiki, click the 'Edit' button on the top right of all pages, and click 'Save' to save your changes.
  • To add pages to the wiki, click the plus sign (+) next to Pages and Files in the navigation bar.
  • Go to 'Wiki Tutorial' and 'How To Join' to learn more about how to use this wiki.
  • Go to 'Wiki Support' to ask questions or make suggestions to a Wiki administrator. Alternatively, you can email the Wiki Community Manager at pacwikihelp@worldbank.org.


PaNPAC Member Countries (thus far)

Click on a flag to go to that country's page
cook_islands.png
Cook Islands

fj.png
Fiji

new-zealand.png
New Zealand

niue.png
Niue


samoa.png
Samoa

solomon-islands.png
Solomon Islands

tonga.png
Tonga

vanuatu.png
Vanuatu

Flag - Bougainville.gif
Bougainville

Objectives

PaNPAC's objective is to improve the capacity of parliaments in the Pacific to hold governments to account for their use of public money. In doing so, the network will contribute to better public administration and greater public confidence in the institutions of government.

Specifically, PaNPAC aims to:
  • Facilitate the exchange of information, opinion and experience relating to Public Accounts Committees and to discuss matters of mutual interest to the membership.
  • Improve the quality and performance of Public Accounts Committees in the Pacific to ensure that taxpayers are getting value for money.
  • Work with Auditors General so as to improve the effectiveness of both the Auditors and the Public Accounts Committees.
  • Work with individuals and organizations knowledgeable about matters of concern to Public Accounts Committees.
  • Apprise elected Members, the media and the general public as to the purposes and activities of Public Accounts Committees.
  • Take all actions needed to facilitate and further attainment of the aforesaid aims and objectives


Membership

The network will be a community of practice comprising members of parliamentary PACs (or committees with similar responsibilities) and the staff of such committees.

Network events will be open to Auditors-General (Supreme Audit Institutions) from Pacific countries, and other invited accountability and capacity building partners.

Activities

The network will provide information and knowledge sharing opportunities, including at regular meetings or conferences, with a focus on:
  • Peer to peer knowledge transfer and skills development (potentially evolving to peer-exchange and peer-assist support);
  • Discussion of common challenges;
  • Development of work practices, including publication of templates for review and reporting
  • Practical research on PAC mandate, powers and membership, with a view to setting Pacific benchmarks; and
  • Advocacy for accountability, transparency and anti-corruption issues.

These activities will be directed at:
  • Strengthening the understanding and capacity of PAC members and staff;
  • Strengthening connections between PACs and Auditors‐General; and
  • Strengthening the accountability performance of parliaments.





informacion@procredit-group.com