Performance Auditing: The Jurisdiction of the Australian Auditor General - De Jure or De Facto?; A Comment

The question of the Australian Auditor General's performance audit mandate has become an issue of contention and debate from the early 1970s to the present. The reality of the Australian Audit Office (AAO) performance audit mandate is based on a penetration of the complex discourse that include...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Financial accountability & management 1991-07, Vol.7 (2), p.107
Main Authors: Parker, Lee D, Guthrie, James, Glynn, John J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Auditing
Auditing policies
Audits
Effectiveness
Governmental accounting
Jurisdiction
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The question of the Australian Auditor General's performance audit mandate has become an issue of contention and debate from the early 1970s to the present. The reality of the Australian Audit Office (AAO) performance audit mandate is based on a penetration of the complex discourse that includes official pronouncements, commentaries, reports, speeches, and the public sector literature. A resolution of this important issue requires the identification of the AAO's de jure mandate versus its de facto mandate. The evidence suggests that, de jure, the Auditor General of Australia publicly declared his performance audit scope to be limited to economy and efficiency. The penetration of de facto intent and practice can only come through a critical processual analysis of discourse and practice, both formal and informal. Glynn comments that, while parts of Parker and Guthrie may make a useful contribution to the debate on the mandate and practices of the AAO, their rather sweeping concluding comments appear to be unsubstantiated.
ISSN:0267-4424
1468-0408