1 / 7

SCoAG Update -Auditor General Consideration of alternate Funding Options

SCoAG Update -Auditor General Consideration of alternate Funding Options. April 2008. Content. Primary Funding Options under consideration Retain and Improve existing model Chapter 9 allocation Way Forward. Primary option 1: Retain and improve existing model.

lev-dillon
Download Presentation

SCoAG Update -Auditor General Consideration of alternate Funding Options

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SCoAG Update -Auditor GeneralConsideration of alternate Funding Options April 2008

  2. Content • Primary Funding Options under consideration • Retain and Improve existing model • Chapter 9 allocation • Way Forward

  3. Primary option 1: Retain and improve existing model • Option retains auditee billing and collection mechanism whilst addressing constraints which have been introduced to the tariff model over time. The following changes are required: • Remove all tariff “caps” currently restricting recoverability. • Introduce additional tariff intervals for high cost staff. • Reduce recoverable hours to realistic historic levels. • Re-introduce tariff model symmetry. • Revise allowable surplus margin from 3% to between 4 and 5%. • Determine tariffs based on the new relationship between direct audit staff costs and overheads .including a revised surplus margin. • Recognise realistic vacancy estimates in the tariff determination process. • Above would require an estimated 14.9% once-off adjustment to tariffs in financial year 2009/10. • Revise billing and collection processes including a more active Treasury role.

  4. Primary option 1: Retain and improve existing model cont/. • Advantages: • Interaction between auditee and AG maintained in fee negotiation process. • Linkage between service receipt and payment is maintained. • Enables flexibility in application of external contract work. • Recognises changed AG cost structure. • Aligns AG tariffs with audit industry, approach albeit at lower rates. • Disadvantages: • Effective cross subsidisation of poor paying auditees by paying entities. • Rates will increase by an additional 14.9% as a once-off adjustment. Thereafter normal cost increases will apply. • Significant management effort and focus on fee collections is retained. • Increased bad debts from local authorities resulting from higher audit charges.

  5. Primary option 2: Chapter 9 allocation • Option is aligned to the recommendations contained in the “Report of the ad hoc Committee on the Review of Chapter 9 and Associated Institutions” dated 31 July 2007. The commission was chaired by Hon. Prof. AK Asmal. • The report’s recommendations include: • The budgets of all Chapter 9 institutions should be part of Parliament’s Budget Vote. • The above “process should be negotiated with National Treasury and should afford the institutions adequate opportunity to motivate their budget submissions directly to National Treasury before decisions on the budget allocations are taken”. • “…the programme within Parliament’s Budget Vote for these institutions would still fall under the Public Finance Management Act and would be subject to accountability and audit arrangements common to other organs of state”.

  6. Primary option 2: Chapter 9 allocation cont/. • Advantages: • The effort associated with debt collection is avoided enabling audit staff focus on primary area of responsibility. • Process aligned to global best practice. Universal international practice allows for centralised responsibility of AG funding. • Disadvantages: • Dependency of approval of the budget by National Treasury. • Additional scrutiny and possible impingement on independence. • The additional monitoring and reporting requirements of the PFMA need to be complied with. • Possible loss of focus on cost controls and the achievement of efficiencies. • Potential additional funding requirements (brought about by say additional vacancies / contract work) will need to be separately requested and motivated. • Removes the linkage between the entity for whom the work is undertaken and the entity responsible for payment. This may have a negative impact on the auditee’s approach towards the cost effective completion of the audit.

  7. 2. Way forward • The preferred funding option will be recommended after completing the following: • Interact with National Treasury at DG level • Engage with SCoAG • Receive input from the SAI Global Working Group • Engage with IRBA • Discuss and evaluate all options at AG EXCO • The final recommendation will be made to SCoAG at the June 2008 meeting

More Related