2011-12

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.3 Findings arising from the audit of reporting on predetermined objectives 2.3.1 Overall outcomes from the audit of reporting on predetermined objectives Movement in number of auditees with findings on PDOs Unchanged with findings 10 (38%) Regressed 2 (8%) 54% (14) 35% (9) Improved 7 (27%) Unchanged with no findings 7 (27%) 46% (12) 65% (17) 2011-12 (26) 2010-11 (26) Auditees with PDO findings Auditees with no PDO findings Non-compliance with legislation relating to strategic planning, performance management and reporting 30% (6) 80% or less of planned targets fully achieved 100% (1) 80% (4) 65% (13) Material adjustments made to annual performance reports 60% (3) 40% (8) Metro District Municipalities Local Municipality Metro District Municipalities Local Municipalities Total 100% 0% 40% 40% 60% 60% 55% 15% 23% 15% 10% 8% 7% 20% 15% 55% 54% Findings on both usefulness and reliability Findings on usefulness only Findings on reliability only No PDO findings 33
The Public Audit Act, 2004 (Act No. 25 of 2004) (PAA) requires the AGSA to audit annually the reported information relating to the performance of the auditees against their PDOs. The overall audit outcomes on the audit of PDOs shown in the above figure indicate an improvement in the number of auditees that had no PDO findings. Table 7: Key trends in findings on predetermined objectives Indicator Key findings Findings reduced Compliance reduced Planned targets not met Annual report corrections Fourteen (54%) [2010-11: nine (35%)] of the reported auditees received PDO audit outcomes that did not have findings. This represents an improvement of seven (27%) during the period under review. Six (23%) [2010-11: nine (35%)] auditees had material compliance findings relating to PDOs. The most prevalent of these findings related to strategic planning and performance management, performance reporting, internal audit units and audit committees. Eighteen (69%) municipalities did not meet at least 80% of their planned targets. Eleven (42%) of the auditees’ annual performance reports had errors that were corrected as a result of the audit. Good Concerned Poor 34
Page 1 and 2: 2011-12 General report on the audit
Page 3 and 4: General report on the audit outcome
Page 5 and 6: KEY ROLE PLAYERS NOT PROVIDING ASSU
Page 7 and 8: In working towards sustainable clea
Page 9 and 10: Aspect Indicator Key outcomes and t
Page 15 and 16: Table 2: Summary of audit outcomes
Page 17 and 18: It is clear from the audit outcomes
Page 19 and 20: Indicator Key outcomes and trends c
Page 21 and 22: Indicator Key outcomes and trends L
Page 23 and 24: Indicator Key outcomes and trends A
Page 25 and 26: In 2011-12, one district municipali
Page 27 and 28: 2.1.4 Status and outcomes of audits
Page 29 and 30: Swellendam experienced a breakdown
Page 31 and 32: The purpose of the annual audit of
Page 33: The three most common qualification
Page 37 and 38: Findings on reliability relate to w
Page 39 and 40: The PAA requires the AGSA to audit
Page 41 and 42: Table 10: Summarised findings in ot
Page 43 and 44: The AGSA audits included an assessm
Page 45 and 46: Table 12: Prohibited awards to empl
Page 47 and 48: Table 13: Awards to close family me
Page 49 and 50: Suppliers were required to submit a
Page 51 and 52: eap the required benefits. More emp
Page 53 and 54: The MFMA requires accounting office
Page 55 and 56: The previous figure reflects the th
Page 57 and 58: The previous figure reflects the th
Page 59 and 60: Figure 11: Nature of and overall tr
Page 61 and 62: Indicator Auditors identify a large
Page 63 and 64: Root cause number 1: Slow response
Page 65 and 66: Root cause number 3: Key positions
Page 67 and 68: 3.2 Significant deficiencies in aud
Page 69 and 70: Good Concerned Poor The status of t
Page 71 and 72: Driver no. 1: Leadership Movement A
Page 73 and 74: the requirement of the MFMA. Driver
Page 75 and 76: 3.3 Human resource management Effec
Page 77 and 78: Indicator Vacant CFO positions Vaca
Page 79 and 80: Indicator minimum competencies CFO
Page 81 and 82: Unqualified with no findings (5) Un
Page 83 and 84: A lack of discipline, an absence of
Page 85 and 86:
Indicator Key findings Allegations
Page 87 and 88:
3.4.2 Summary of the overall audit
Page 89 and 90:
3.4.3.1 Metropolitan municipalities
Page 91 and 92:
Figure 15: Security management audi
Page 93 and 94:
Minimal improvement Controls not de
Page 95 and 96:
3.4.6 Information technology servic
Page 97 and 98:
3.4.7 Quick wins and recommendation
Page 99 and 100:
3.5 Audit committees and internal a
Page 101 and 102:
Governance structure aspect Audit c
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 21: Level of assurance provi
Page 105 and 106:
Table 32: Comments on the level of
Page 107 and 108:
Provincial role players do have a n
Page 109 and 110:
Auditee Coordinating/ monitoring in
Page 111 and 112:
• The role players within the mun
Page 113 and 114:
4.3 Interactions with mayors In res
Page 115 and 116:
4.4 Initiatives and commitments of
Page 117 and 118:
Key role players Outline of initiat
Page 119 and 120:
Key role players Outline of initiat
Page 121 and 122:
ecome standard practice to brief th
Page 123 and 124:
Management is responsible for the s
Page 125 and 126:
69% (18) 100% (1) 60% (3) 70% (14)
Page 127 and 128:
35% write-off of debts. Only three
Page 129 and 130:
The following figure elaborates on
Page 131 and 132:
5.2.4 Financial performance and pos
Page 133 and 134:
2011-12 audit outcome 2010-11 audit
Page 135:
ANNEXURE 3: Auditee’ audit opinio
show all

2011-12

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?