COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION MODELS FOR FOLLOWING UP AUDIT REPORTS OF INDONESIAN PUBLIC AUDITING1

Septiana Dwiputrianti

Abstract


Paska desentralisasi pemerintahan yang demokratis di era reformasi ini, peranan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK) dalam mewujudkan transparansi dan akuntabilitas keuangan dan kinerja pemerintah menjadi sangatlah signifikan.
Pemeriksaan yang objektif dan credibel menjadi tuntutan yang tidak bisa dielakkan sebagai kriteria suatu kualitas laporan hasil pemeriksaan. Salah satu ukuran keberhasilan dari hasil laporan pemeriksaan adalah efektifitas tindak lanjut dari rekomendasi yang diberikan oleh BPK. Kualitas informasi dan komunikasi adalah salah satu faktor kunci agar laporan hasil pemeriksaan itu. Adapun hasil pemeriksaan yang sudah dipublikasikan menjadi sangat penting untuk segera dapat ditindaklanjuti oleh anggota DPR/DPRD (Legislative), pemerintah (Executive) dan publik (salah satunya adalah media)
untuk mendorong terciptanya check and balances untuk mewujudkan pengelolaan pemerintahan yang baik dan bersih. Kajian menemukan adanya keterbatasan dari anggota DPR/DPRD dalam memahami hasil laporan pemeriksaan. Disamping itu, rendahnya tindak lanjut yang dilakukan oleh investigators (kejaksaan, kepolisian dan KPK) untuk hasil temuan
yang berindikasikan kriminalitas dan korupsi. Dengan tujuan meningkatkan kualitas komunikasi yang lebih efektif dan mewujudkan tindak lanjut hasil rekomendasi/pemeriksaan yang lebih tinggi, disampaikan dua rekomendasi, yaitu (1) model pelayanan komunikasi dan konsultasi serta diskusi antara BPK kepada para anggota DPR/DPRD, serta (2) model komunikasi dan kerjasama BPK dengan Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia untuk hasil pemeriksaan berindikasikan krimalitas dan korupsi.


Keywords


Communication and Consultating Models, Audit Reports of Indonesian Public Auditing

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aldons, M., 2001. Responsible, representative and

accountable government, Australian Journal of Public

Administration, 60(1):34-42.

Abdolmohammadi, M.J., 2009. Factors associated with the

use of and compliance with the IIA standards: a study of

Anglo-culture CAEs, International Journal of

Auditing, 13 (1):27-42.

Bertsk, J., 2000. Trust in Government Ethics Measures in

OECD Countries, Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD), Paris.

Chen, S., Su, X., and Wang, Z., 2005. An analysis of

auditing environment and modified audit opinions in

China: underlying reasons and lessons, International

Journal of Auditing, 9(3):165-185.

Dwiputrianti, S., 2011. How Effective if the Indonesia

External Public Sector Auditing Reports before and after

the Audit Reform for Enhancing the Performance of

Public Administration, Conference Proceeding (ISBN

-1707-99-5) of the International Conference on

Public Organisation (ICONPO), Department of

Government Affairs and Administration Faculty of

Social and Political Science, University of

Muhammadyah Yogjakarta, Yogjakarta, Indonesia.

Eckardt, S., 2008. Political accountability, fiscal conditions

and local government performance - cross-sectional

evidence from Indonesia, Public Administration &

Development, 28(1):1-17.

Eksekutif, January 2007. Interview Anwar Nasution:

"Jangan sampai negara jatuh ke preman" (Anwar

Nasution interview: 'Don't let this Republic fall in to

the hands of criminals'), Jakarta.

English, L. and Guthrie, J., 1991. Public Sector Auditing: a

case of contested accountability regimes, Australian

Journal of Public Administration, 50(3):347-360.

Evans, H., 1999. Parliament and extra parliamentary

accountability institutions, Australian Journal of

Public Administration, 58(1):87-89.

Funnell, W., 1994. Independence and the state auditor in

Britain: A constitutional keystone or a case of reified

imagery?, ABACUS, 39(2):175-194.

Gendron, Y. and Cooper, D.J., 2001. In the name of

accountability: state auditing, independence and new

public management, Accounting, Auditing and

Accountability Journal, 14(3): 278-310.

Communication and Consultation Models for Following Up

Audit Reports of Indonesian Public Auditing

» Septiana Dwiputrianti

Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi + Volume VIII + No. 2 + Agustus 2011

Gendron, Y., Cooper, D.J. and Townley, B., 2007. The

construction of auditing expertise in measuring

g o v e r nme n t p e r f o rma n c e , Ac c o u n t i n g ,

Organisations and Society, 32(1/2):101-129.

Gonzalez, B., Lopez, A., Garcia, R., 2008. Supreme audit

institutions and their communication strategies,

International Review of Administrative Sciences,

(3): 435-461.

Guthrie, J., 1990. The contested nature of performance

auditing in Australia, in J. Guthrie, Parker, L. and

Shand, D. (ed.), The Public Sector: contemporary

readings in accounting and auditing, Harcourt

Brace Jovanovich, Sydney.

Kejaksaan Agung and BPK RI, 2007. Kesepakatan

Bersama Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik

Indonesia dan Kejaksaan Agung Republik

Indonesia tentang tindak lanjut penegakan

hukum terhadap hasil pemeriksaan yang diduga

mengandung unsur tindak pidana (Memorandum

of Understanding between BPK RI and the

Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia on

following-up law enforcement for audit reports

that have indications of corruption), Nomor:

/KB/I-VIII.3/07/2007 and Nomor: KEP-

/A/JA/07/2007.

Nicoll, P., 2005. Audit in Democracy, Ashgate

Publishing Ltd, England.

Hodgdon, C., et. al., 2009. Compliance with international

financial reporting standards and auditor choice: new

evidence on the importance of the statutory audit, The

International Journal of Accounting, 44(1):33-55.

Houghton, K.A. and Jubb, C.A., 1998. The function of

the auditor-general: independence, competence and

outsourcing – the policy implications, Australian

Accounting Review, 8(1):30-35.

MoU, 2006. Kesepakatan Bersama Antara Badan

Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik Indonesia dan

Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia

(Memorandum of Understanding between BPK RI

and Parliament), BPK RI, Jakarta.

Quick, R. and Rasmussen, B.W., 2002. Disciplinary

observance and sanctions on German and Danish

auditors, International Journal of Auditing,

(2):133-153.

Saleh, A.R., 2007. Korupsi dan hambatan instrumental di

dalam pembuktian (Corruption and instrumental

impediments in evidence), International Conference

on Public Sector Auditing, 9 January, Jakarta.

Satriyo, H.A., Abidin, A., Kusdaryanto, H. and

Bulosan, L.A. , 2003. Indones ia Rapid

Decentralization Appraisal (IRDA): Third Report,

The As ia Foundat ion, Jakar ta,ht tp://

www. a s i a f ounda t i on. o r g/pdf/IRDA3 -

english.pdf (accessed 23/09/2006).

Scott, C., 2003. Speaking softly without big sticks: meta

regulation and public sector audit, Law and Policy,

(3):203-219.

Simms, M., 1999. Models of political accountability and

concept of Australian government, Australian

Journal of Public Administration, 58 (1):34-38.

Soedibyo, 2004. The absence of law enforcement, The

Audit Forum, VII (1):12-14.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31113/jia.v8i2.281

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2019 Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi: Media Pengembangan Ilmu dan Praktek Administrasi

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Indexed by:

     

 

@2017-2019

Jalan Cimandiri No. 34-38 Bandung

Laman: stialanbandung.ac.id

Powered by OJS (Open Jounal Systems)