I'm not familiar with the change you just referred to, so I'm answering a little on the fly. I stand to be corrected if I'm misunderstanding what's behind this change.
In general, I would have thought it makes sense to have a tighter reporting cycle. If I go to some of the considerations that lie behind our report, we spent quite a bit of time talking about the speed with which different governments produce their financial statements.
Speed is a good thing. It's good for accountability. You don't want results out at a point when it sort of feels like old news and when, if there was a problem to be corrected, it might be too late to correct it. The speedy collection of information is valuable for all kinds of other reasons. If you're slow collecting your information for the year, you're naturally on your back foot when it comes to preparing your budget for the next year, because the natural place to start with many plans is to understand where you are and what just happened.
My quick reaction—and I admit it's not after having studied it—is to say it's better to have tighter reporting cycles. It's better to have more frequent reporting cycles. There's real merit in collecting and releasing information quickly.