Checks On Local Body Accounting

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31306, 28 February 1967, Page 15

Checks On Local Body Accounting

Changes in methods which have allowed Audit Department inspectors to give wider coverage, and the adoption by municipalities of accounting regulations along the lines of those in use for some years by county councils, have led to stricter control of local body accounts. “The new accounting regulations for municipalities have no relevance to a stricter control by Government over local body expenditure,” said an Audit Department spokesman. “They simply provide an outline of a standardised set of accounts. “The nearest thing to an exception is with plant operating accounts, w’here an attempt is made to ensure that excessive plant hire rates are not charged on roading work subsidised by the National Roads Board. “The municipal accounting regulations were long overdue. The counties have had theirs in force since April 1, 1958. Power boards are now following suit. “There have been some changes in methods which have enabled us to give wider coverage than we did before, but our standards are the same. ‘The Audit Department is not a finance-controlling agency of the Government Our interest in economy, such as stores control, finance control systems, internal checks and so on, is a statutory function in the public interest and has been exercised for decades. Own Masters “It does not vary according to the degree of financial concern expressed by the Government Within the limits of their general, specific statutory powers, local bodies are their own masters.” A spokesman for the depart meat’s Christchurch office said that if an irregularity were found, it would be reported to Wellington, and, if necessary, head office would “tag” the local body’s balance sheet The inspector would bring to the notice of the local body anything he thought to be questionable. “We don’t ‘require’ although in some cases we have authority to do so. We ‘draw attention’ and ‘advise’. Our wider coverage has enabled us to do more of this,” he said. A Waimairi County Council officer said that the staff had! been told “at inspector level” that audit requirements would •!

be stricter, and that a closer watch would be kept on expenditure. “But,” he said, “it is hard to see what the Audit Department can do except advise us. It is obvious that a council has only so much money to spend, is interested in keeping the rates down, and generally keeps its own close check on expenditure.” Mr A. Kelly, the Paparua County Clerk, said that there was no indication of a stiffening in audit requirements. “We get all the advice and help we need from the inspectors, and there is every co-operation,” he said. “The accounting regulations govern the preparation of accounts slightly more strictly, and they have helped to standardise procedure.” Mrs R. Ballintine, the Halswell County Clerk, said that she thought the inspectors were being a little more careful in what they looked at.

but, on the whole, the inspectors were very helpful. Another view was put by Lyttelton’s Town Clerk (Mr J. Thompson), who said that the new regulations had made procedures stricter. “Everybody has had the same trouble in understanding just what the regulations mean, and how to interpret them,” he said. “The way plant hire charges (claimed against National Roads Board subsidy) are made is a case in point.” In his annual report last year, the Auditor-General (Mr B. D. A. Greig) said that there was a clear obligation on members and executive officers of local bodies to keep a constant watch on the finances. It was the intention of the Audit Office, said Mr Greig, to name in future reports those local bodies which were persistent or serious offenders.