| Auditor General Act |
|
Legislators
I hereby propose discussion on the following draft, the contents of which, I hope, are self-explanatory. I thank you for your time. Beepee Auditor General Act
Article 1 - Objectives An Act to promote an effective and efficient Government (1) The objectiveof this Act is to create the position of Auditor General and an Audit Committee to provide independent oversight of Government performance with powers to report directly to the Assembly . Article 2 - The Audit Committee (1) The Audit Committee is an independent body which will report on the performance, including but not limited to its efficiency and effectiveness, of the Cabinet to the Assembly. (2) The Committee will consist of the Auditor General, who is the chair of the Committee, and two commissioners. (3) The position of Auditor General and commissioners will run for a period of one calendar year from the first day of October. (4) Not before first day of September the Assembly shall nominate three of its numbers to sit on the Committee. (5) Nominees must not be a member of the same political party, as defined elsewhere, as any Minister, including the Prime Minister. (6) Upon confirmation of nominations, the three nominated legislators must confirm to the Assembly the name of the Auditor General. (7) Should a position become available within the Committee, a replacement shall be nominated within one month of the vacancy arising. Article 3 - Powers of the Committee (1) The Audit Committee will have powers to a. Make recommendations on processes and procedures which would support the efficient and effective operation of the Cabinet. b. Settle disputes between Cabinet Ministers in a confidential manner using mediation. c. Make recommendations to the legislature on motions of no confidence made on the grounds of ineffective operations of the Cabinet. d. Publish performance audits, as the committee deems necessary, including any illegality, negligence or misconduct by any Minister, including the Prime Minister. (2) Where necessary, the Audit Committee will have the authority to request and receive transmissions from the Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, and/or legislators. Article 4 - Actions of the Committee (1) When undertaking audit work the Committee should be, and should be seen to be, independent. This means the Committee must be objective, impartial and comply fully with the expected ethical standards of any auditor. (2) The Committee will report in public and make recommendations on what they find without being influenced by fear or favour. (3) The Committee must exercise professional scepticism and demonstrate that they understand the environment in which the Cabinet and Ministers operate. (4) Work undertaken should be tailored to the circumstances of the audit. FIndings and judgements made must be supported by appropriate levels of evidence and justification. (5) The Committee may draw on self-assessment and self-evaluation evidence when assessing cases. However, the outcomes should be quality based. Article 5 - Quality Reporting Outcomes (1) It is important that judgements and recommendations are clear and can be understood by those charged with governance and those who have an interest. (2) All reports produced are to be: a. Written in plain language, minimising jargon and technical terms b. Relevant to the needs of the Assembly and Cabinet c. Focused on drawing clear conclusions and making recommendations for improvement, where appropriate. d. Issued promptly at the appropriate point in the process. Article 6 - Correspondence (1) Issues may be raised with the Auditor General (2) The key factor in determining whether the Committee examines an issue is the relevance of the issue. (3) The Committee will make this judgement using their professional and personal judgement and may decline to examine an issue. Edit1: Corrected name of Cabinet/Assembly - not highlighted
What are the "Council" and the "legislative Assembly"?
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
My apologies
The council should be 'cabinet' The legislative assembly is the assembly. Edit.... I'll update. Ive only been writing it for 2 days... you would think i should have got that right! *hangs head in shame*
This seems entirely unnesecary, bureaucratic and burdensome. Please explain (in a few hundred words);
1. The purpose of this office 2. How this purpose is a necessary one 3. How this office will affect this purpose 4. How this office is the most effective way to do so Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
I don't know if we need to having a sitting person for this. However, it might be useful to have this position appointed on a need be basis (like Roavin opened documents and such to Serres during this latest discussion.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
This seems like a good solution to the MoNC problem, but it seems unneccesary to add a new office for. We can just have the CRS do this stuff.
Nice idea though, Beepee. Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
Sorry, i did kind of drop this and run last night. Some background will be up tonight
I do think we could just have an official auditor title, even if its a CRS for former CRS member who volunteers.
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
Dear Legislators,
I have proposed the Auditor General Act as a means to promote the efficient and effective governance of the South Pacific. Any Government, even NS Governments, should have 'good governance', that is appropriate performance measures to avoid situations where detrimental, unethical or inappropriate behaviours derail the effective running of the Government for the good of its citizens. Whilst I make no negative or derogatory comment about the governance of the South Pacific, it occurred to me that such matters are usual in local, regional/state and Federal/National levels and following a review of existing legislation none appears to exist for the South Pacific. Belschaft has specifically asked 4 questions: 1. The purpose of this office The purpose of this office is set out in Article 3 which defines the limited powers of the position/committee. 2. How this purpose is a necessary one The purpose is necessary, for example, to avoid a situation where a minister fails, or appears to fail, in his/her duties. In such a case, it would allow for an interpretation of relevant information or can be used mediator should disputes arise. In the South Pacific, I consider, that this could be useful given our coalition of parties. It also provides for an independent body which can, without the requirement to involve the courts, adeptly and professionally assist legislators in assessing background information on certain matters. Furthermore, it ensures an anti-corruption check and balance for any attempted redistribution of power. 3. How this office will affect this purpose The office will affect this purpose by means of being asked to provide the services, as outlined in Article 6. Article 6 also allows the office to filter and reject requests. Article 3 (2) allows the Auditor General to request information pertinent to the assessment of any matter relevant. Whilst there is no onus to provide, this could be noted and raised in recommendations issued under Article 4. 4. How this office is the most effective way to do so Whilst other Acts allow, for example, the Prime Minister to appoint special representative (as Tsunamy indicates), the ability for an independent body, without ties to the Cabinet as required at Article 2, ensures an appropriate check which cannot be effectively maintained by a centralised decision making body. Whilst other methods exist, for example an independent commission against corruption, the ability to organise these in a manner likely to be effective in the specifics of NS/South Pacific or achieve success in a vote is, in my view, unlikely. Whilst I understand a reticence against such a position on the grounds of bureaucracy, I do hope that consideration can be given to the Act in light of the comments above. I thank the assembly for its time.
Firstly, please adequately answer questions one and two. Referring us to an article or section of the draft does not constitute such; had I felt that the draft sufficiently explained these issues I would not have asked the questions.
More questions; 5. How will this office "avoid a situation where a minister fails, or appears to fail, in his/her duties"? 6. Why do you consider the non-involvement of the courts necessary? 7. What other ways to "promote the efficient and effective governance of the South Pacific" did you consider before settling on the Audit Committee? Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |