THERE’S something awkward about Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s announcement of an audit into the expenditure of the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) while he engages in a war with the Auditor General.
In any other context, an audit would be good.
But the breakneck speed at which a report – which Mr Imbert says will cover the last 14 years – is to be tabled suggests the exercise is a pappyshow.
The public wants true accountability in spending, not just another prop for the political platform.
An audit is a serious thing.
The annual budget process – in which a government presents a plan of action for an upcoming year – results in emphasis on how ministries will spend as opposed to how they have spent.
If anything, there should be more auditing of past activity. And not just at the OPM.
But there is already a constitutional mechanism in place to ensure precisely that: the independent office of the Auditor General.
The minister’s issuing of instructions to “the central audit division” of his ministry suggests, at the very least, a lack of confidence in established procedures, as well as a belief in the low likelihood of a special report being generated on this issue by Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass.
Mr Imbert’s strong pushback against two successive reports by Ms Ramdass raises other questions.
Should this ministerial audit not find favour, will it be similarly repudiated?
Or are the findings pre-ordained?
And is it appropriate for a mere division of the ministry to probe an office of such heft? Which powers will it invoke?
The ostensible scope of the audit, too, does not inspire, with the minister vaguely saying it will cover “entertainment and other expenses such as maintenance.” At one stage, he quipped, “I won’t go into details about $3,000 on roti and $1 million on shrimp.”
The recent exchanges between Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the Prime Minister over OPM expenditure suggest there are serious questions to be addressed, which we are not confident might be answered by a focus on entertainment floats.
Dr Rowley’s statement that money for Udecott flows through his office, and Ms Persad-Bissessar’s rejection of this explanation and suggestion of budgetary “double dipping” demand proper accountability.
Under the present administration, portfolio responsibility for Udecott was shifted to the OPM, as several restoration projects were completed. Previous budget documents have reflected this.
But how has this shift worked? Has oversight improved? Why are Udecott loans still scattered around? Has the entity been complying with procurement laws?
If only Mr Imbert’s audit might answer all this.
And if only we could be confident that, whatever the audit reveals, it will not just be another piece of paper doing little to improve systems and the way governments work.
Finance Minister Colm Imbert
The post Awkward audit appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
