A REPLY TO MR GILFORD.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18141, 2 August 1924, Page 15

A REPLY TO MR GILFORD.

S PEECH^^ N - W ' POWNIE STEWART. gCATHING CRITICISM. {©KM* 10 ?RESB -" ) WELLINGTON. August 1. delivered in the House cu *J*2utir« evening by the pownic Stewart was piob- **■ J effective that has been debate up to the It was certainly a most dorerfy to the Liberal Leader's and was listened to with rapt I®. ' by nearly everyone present. of the Opposition, said t/ Stewart, accused the Minister of ' * »of having faked tables, of havm r*totts& fig^ es and misrepreseilted of being contradicted by tif. Generally, the Leader of, ? Opposition had denounced the figBudget 03 untrustworthy | mass of figures in sup-1 <*id M* Stewart, j Stallhiw gone through the state't,Bade by him in support of these criticisms, and canSri at any point that he is accurate] or that there is between the Auditor-General and S Treasury, or the Auditor-General «a the Minister of Finance. At every m the figures are perfectly easy to ~niiiti and are not open to any of the Sgcstions made by the Leader of the Party. In fact, when he accuses SStatatoof .Finance of faking tables ldo not think it carries any weight in country, because the country would Jo t attribute such an action to the pre•at Minister of Finance. With reference to the British War lean stock, Mr Wilford hud said that. Vf jtfmsoy's statement that tho profit aider that jnveatment was no less than £127*610 was inaccurate, and that the jttditor-Getteial's statement showed ttit the Prime Minister was utterly and ibtflntely inaccurate, for there was a j#® on the realisation of £6758. That tacked away, far away, from the Butot under the heading; "Unauthorised" at the end of the accounts. In'reply to this, Mr Stewart pointed est tl»t there was no such statement in fcaßjdget. What the Minister of FianM bad put in the Budget was the ftetttet this stock was bought at £95, th&i its present market value was £lO2, that the price quoted *'ould repremt a profit on the transaction amountis* to £170,900. Mr Wilfojd: £137,000.. The Minister: That is after the dedqetkfi I have explained. The four sasths' interest accrued, leaving a not woitof £137,000. Mr Wilfori: That is on the investBtSt , Tie Minister: Tes. Now, where I joisitae with the honourable member iiwiwrhe says that so far from there Wsg a profit there was a loss ,of ,&ad that it is tucked away in aa«tt«rUed accounts. Now, all the ttttdtuised accounts say is: There is tIM on tho realisation of 5 per cent. BSfoji War Lokn stock,of £6758. But 8$ was not on this transaction, but on ma farther stock, thought at .£991 to 11-jlßi. and the Budget expressly ttji so.':' ,lf the, Liberal leader looks it tta piibllf &cc'ounts he will see that toe has been a sale of part of the iWtlie is dealing with at a profit, certiUSv by > the Auditor-General, of itiySSlf and half the stock is not yet nJir ?t Is clearly shown that what has «ta#djr llben. dealt with has made a p«it And that there is still (lit bshuiee of the stock to be dealt with.--- Sfowj the. honourable member totidhi've ascertained that, so far fromaaklnig A'loia of £6758, we come out *Mi a Wndeome profit of £45,561 on already dealt with. There-1 w* lij'ntatsment is without foundaw,>an3 moßt misleading, and I 'hope »» MaArable member will not use it Sd» "through the country as a of the Budget, * will prove it as well. Minister: If the honourable i." to P l ?*® it after I M'eiwjnfM bJin to chapter and verse, ' 8 ¥ fintiro b* wrong, then I m' j indulging' in fair criticism, wjWaoui # put Ifce true position bew?tpe=country.-

" Propaganda Figures. proceeded to deal with vwUfttd'»,BnggesUon that the MinL Pce had held,back tho inthe interest on the Dis- »?' I'und- had not becu Was only when his at~ towo to it, shortly before «Mg«t waa issued, that lie made "!*«»& of it. *, 4.?,,' absolutely contradict mr Mia the Minister, "ber» J happened to be ActKnanee at the time oehß' arose ' and when t fth». wyau months' account: ajwmwt of last year, I specially {g*gUfa' Fnni. I pointed our tol il* J?+? reßt had not been P aid > ffltter was commented on by the Dominion." sfaSSl H 0 ¥ 3 olear and defLv .showing exactly the irf»L?# oW^ übef '* The whol-j rt J* 1,0 Bald ' was clear * J Budget, kte%^4v^f ori WBs reported to Witiahf tK °o afi^nda fi ß« rcs had U* ® ttd « et 1923 when Btated tiat «•« •MiuSJ. « * .J 1 ?ear totalled .that the statement was to the Andi--6S faAw 3!no ' lht ot loan s Paid - ,I JS«W% was £5.396,421. Mr Stewart /'there is a °, nd definite > that the tf-%. r i,^ r A _ lwe< * t° hare paid 2 6 '- 01 -" w ell. we and sce what l 7?" statement, than a ~er; Tho M»ch 31st, 1023, *; r eom P ared with n ^ 0., ®80 1 ? 3' given quite % Wka | 3 ,^ a i ,! here c -° uld b(? ®art: Taaw, ™ ,cn foJows this state £3,466,201 bv^^T l .being pro- > ?*«£', Hi"*? baia *« bv the S th? bentUre , fi - Aj,J on SSe rtL».^ me »s shown J h , e «»>ountot * ?? from tbe rcBU . rplns rev " ' 2? MsT"; a 4 tlieo 34 sot out ■feS^ l^*»te?*bv P j 1 aod lhe Tiia*o debentures rogt ia wfcr to, to bo act the financial jT bu t nowlierc «•* Wonls -sSif 9? 4 redeemed,' fairly. '> 4. it every case was

riglit and the Leader of the Opposition wrong. He dealt in succession with Mr Wilford's statements: (1) in regara to the national debt repayments, that £375,000 of the accumulated surpluses, under the heading of "investment in Bank of New Zealand shares." had been left out of the table of receipts and expenditure to March 31st, and that the table, as it stood, was a fake; (2) the alleged difference of £BB2 between the Budget and the Auditor-General s figures; (3) the difference in transfers from the Ordinary Kevenne Account to the Loan Eederoplion Account, one item stating £1,367,341, and another £1,367,401. The Minister showed tha„ the figures were perfectly reconcilable. Mr Wilford made various interjections, stating, in some cases, that he had been misreported.

"Secret" Investments. Mr Stewart next referred to Mr Wilford's statement that the investments were the most secret department of the public accounts. He quoted Mr Wilford ;is saving that th° Budget of 1923-24 i put this investment at £1,212,919. Mr Wilford: No, for 1922-23. The Minister: The honourable member is quoted as having said 1923-24, but if he says he referred to 1922-23, 1 accept the correction. But the figures are the most important. He starts with £1,212,919, and he says: "I have found details in the Budget, amounting to £2,701,150, which makes a total of £3,914,069." X think the honourable member means the next Budget. Mr Wilford: Ydu left out three words The Minister: I am quoting the honourable member as lie iB reported, and the figures, I assume, are correct. Mr Wilford: I referred to now investments. The Minister: Wc will call it new investments. It does not make any difference, because the honourable member is equally wrong in either case. The report of his speech goes on to say: In the public accounts he found those figures altered from £3,914,069 to £3,074,335, a difference of £839,732. Mr Wilford: Those figures are wrong again. Tho Minister: The honourable member always says lie is not correctly reported. He accurcd us of failing to explain how £BOO,OOO, or more, disappeared. Mr Wilford: I did not. The Minister: The honourable member is entirely iucorreet, and he ha? only to look up the Budget to see how hopelessly he has gone wrong. The item of £1,212,91:), which he takes as his starting point, appears in the 1924 Budget, in one of the tables at the end showing the investment of the cash balances of the Ordinary Eevenue Account, and the honourable, member ha 3 correctly quoted that figure. Then ha says that he found details in the Budget, which he added oii to that, to show what he thought the fund oaght to bo now. Mr Wilford: No. The Ordinary Revenue Investments Account. The Minister: Very well, whatever you like. I turn now lo the 1921 Budget, in order to make up bis additional amount of £2,701,150. The honourable member added the State Advances securities (£2,326,150) and Bank of New Zealand shares (£375,000). That makes the £2,701,150. The honourable member entirely overlooked ..the fact that he did not add all the securities. Sundry securities follow which amount to £373,187. Ido not know why he left those out. Mr Wilford: Those come off ths £839,732. , - The Minister: No. Tho honourable member has misinterpreted the tabic, and added up the figures without regard to the real position. Tho facts, as stated in the Budget, are quite correct. I think I can explain the reai position to honourable members in tho simplest .way by saying that the hon: ourable member has assumed that, if he takes the investments appearing last year, when tho accounts finish, and adds On to this year what he finds in the way> of investments made during the year, that will give him the present position of ' the Investment Account. But honourable members will know that such an account ts altering every day. Assuming that you had a post office account, with a certain credit balance fit the end of last year, aud you added to that what you paid in the next year, without any regard to withdrawals during the year, how could you expect to reach a true statement of how the account stood? These accounts are moving all tho time. Sometimes money is being paid in, and sometimes it becomes necessary to invest in another account, and you sell certain of your securities. That is the explanation of the whole thing, "ho honourable member adopted tho extraordinary process of adding to the balance at the end of one year the pnynients that were made during the next year. This is how it is that about £BOO,OOO less appears in the Investment Account at' tho end o£ the year than he expected to find. Mr Wilford, by way of personal explanation, spoke for some time, rather heatedly, complaining that he hail been misrepresented, and in ono or two Instances quoted figures to substantiate his point of view. The Minister interjectnd thai M. Wilford was twisting the facts, an«i there the matter ended.