COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION MODELS FOR FOLLOWING UP AUDIT REPORTS OF INDONESIAN PUBLIC AUDITING1
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
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.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The journal allow the authors to hold the copyright without restrictions and allow the authors to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
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.