MILITARY STORES AND EQUIPMENT

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23088, 2 August 1940, Page 10

MILITARY STORES AND EQUIPMENT

accounting system in CAMPS t<POSITION FAR FROM SATISFACTORY V [From Our Parliamentary. Reporter.] WELLINGTON. August 1. “The position in the mobilisation camps as-regards the accounting f£ equipment and stores has. I state, been far from satisfactory, said the Controller and Auditor-General (Mr C. G. Collins) in his report on the Public Accounts, which was tabled in the .House of Representatives by the Speaker (the Hon. W. E. Barnard). “My inspectors are agreed that this is mainly due to the fact the performance of the woik there is an absence of the required trained coursCi re adily understandable that the p&ramount desire of the responsible military officers was to equip the men and provide .for them adequately m camp before their departure overseas, and that matters of accounting for equipment and provisions were, by the exigencies of the times forced into the background, reports Mr Collins. “The Audit Office has kept the position constantly under the notice of -the Treasury and Defence Department, and I am pleased to be able to add that arrangements are in train for an audit officer with long experience in stores work to be seconded to the Defence Departmen r His temporary duty will be not to engage in an audit; but to ensure that conditions prevail which will permit ■ a satisfactory audit to' be later carried Mr Collins says that in view of the extreme urgency of the work of erecting and equipping mobilisation bases and training camps, the normal procedure of calling for tenders for the carrying out of the work was found by the Public Works Department to be impracticable, and the Minister for Public Works had approved the system of letter contracts, on a ‘cost plus” basis. "Some little time after the commencement of work on ‘cost plus* contracts,** Mr Collins says, 'the Public Works Department prepared a standard contract form which was drawn to embody conditions Verbally conveyed to the contractors by the public works engineers. Several groups of contractors declined to sign the contract documents, claiming that the contracts did : not coincide with their impressions of the position, and that they did not wish to prejudice their rights to maximum remuneration, This attitude led to disputes during the settlement of claims, and several of the ‘cost plus’ contracts when settled had to carry a final ‘on cost’ considerably in excess of the originally intended.per cent. The intervention of audit before payment resulted in substantial savings of public money and contractors’ claims iii respect of one mobilisation camp alone 'were, due substantially to audit action. reduced by more than £8000.”