EXPLANATION OF DISCREPANCY

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 298, 13 September 1941, Page 11

EXPLANATION OF DISCREPANCY

Land Development Cost COMMITTEE PRESENTS REPORT

Discrepancies between a return supplied in July, 1939, and the latest annual report of the Lands Department, in figures relating to the cost of land development, have been found by the Public Accounts Committee to be due, not to a defect in the accountancy system of the department, but to mistakes in the manner in which some information was compiled for the return. The committee’s report was presented to the House by Mr. Robertson (Government, Masterton).

The committee stated that the major cause of the discrepancies was the fact that certain types of subsidies on wages were included in a column in the 1939 return, headed “total expenditure, including subsidies.” This was the result of a misinterpretation by some district officers of the meaning of the heading. Further discrepancy was caused by the fact that the figures were furnished as at December 31 instead of at the end of the financial year, and the district offices endeavoured to estimate expenditure as at the earlier date. The committee said it considered that the headings of some of the columns in the return and> also of a table in the Lands Department’s report were not sufficiently explicit about the nature of the figures they purported to cover. The figures in the 1939 return, the committee said, were not appropriate to determine the cost of land development an acre, as they included expenditure for live stock, chattels and current costs. Having regard to the type of development undertaken, the committee agreed that provision must be made for excess labour costs to be written off to the extent that they could not be supported by the productive value of the land. It recommended redrafting of the form of setting out information to ensure that it showed clearly not only the net cost of development, but also actual subsidies granted for each block, and the results of farming operations. It also recommended that the Government set up a select committee to consider and report on the best methods of development and utilization in the national interest of land of the type under discussion. Member Justified. The Acting-Prime Minister, Mr. Nash, said that the discrepancies between the report submitted to the House and the return supplied to the member for Waitomo were such that they should have ■been brought to the notice of the House, and the member for Waitomo was justified in doing so. Not only were some figures, which included £270,000 of subsidies, under a heading which said that subsidies were excluded, but there was also a mistake of £lO,OOO. He could understand the first discrepancy, the result of mistakes by district officers, but not the second, a clerical error. There was nothing wrong with the money or with the accountancy system, and the committee was satisfied with the way in which the accounts were being kept. The reason for going slightly outside the order of reference was that the committee felt that the nation, the Gov-, eminent and Parliament should get a complete and correct picture of what the development of lands meant in the national interests. Taking the return as correct, as he had a right to do, the member for Waitomo was justified in working out the cost of development an acre as he had done; but the return being wrong, his resultant figures were wrong. . “I thank the Acting-Prime Minister for his very frank statement, which will be much appreciated on both sides of the House,” said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland. When the discrepancies were first mentioned a feeling had been created that there were allegations of dishonesty, but that was never intended. The committee had done a good job, conducting its investigation not on party lines and bringing to light certain things that should be brought to light. Mr. Holland thanked the Acting-Prime Minister for his

generous reference to the member for Waitomo. Mr. Broadfoot (Opposition, VVaitomo) said that everything he had said in a previous debate had been vindicated. Attention bad been drawn to rather slack methods. He did not blame the men on the staff. The smallfarm scheme was rather a mushroom growth and new methods ,and systems had had to be evolved. The committee had not reported that Government policy was wrong, said Mr Nash. There was not a shadow or indictment of Government policy in the report.