WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1904. THE AUDIT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 95, 19 October 1904, Page 4

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1904. THE AUDIT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

One of the most glaring anomalies of the Public Service was made the subject of a very proper protest by the Leader of the Opposition during the debate on the Estimates last week. The average man is under the impression that, except for certain facilities of evasion purposely provided by the Public Revenues Amendment Act of 1900, all the public accounts are subject to review by an independent and inexorable Audit Office; and Mr. Massey is perfectly correct in saying that the public is not aware that the revenues of the Customs, Railway, and Lands Departments constitute an exception to this rule. These revenues amount to close on £5,000,000, and represent more than twothirds of the total revenue of the colony, yet, for reasons which the Colonial Secretary could neither explain, nor justify, they are exempt from the control of 'the Auditor-General. The Minister's answer displayed the usual official optimism in favour of things as they are, and he waa horrified to think what the expense and the delays might be if Mr. Massey's suggestion were adopted. We can well understand that there might be very considerable delay before some of- the hanky-panky business that helps to give a prosperous air to the Railway Accounts would be passed by the Audit Office. For years we have protested against the misleading manner in which these accounts have been kept, and the railways made to show a proht by systematically charging to capital account what any mercantile concern would have debited to revenue. If the whole of these accounts were audited like those of most other departments, we can well believe with Sir Joseph Ward that there might, especially at first, be some delay, but we utterly repudiate his contention that a great addition to the expense would also be involved. No doubt some additions to the staff of the Audit Office would be necessitated by such an increase in the scope of its functions, but to put a check upon the practices to which we have referred would mean an immense saving to the taxpayer, and out of his superabundance he could easily spare a small percentage for the extra salaries that would be needed. Besides, as Mr. Massey pointed out, the auditing is carried out already after a fashion, for it is entrusted to officers in the Departments concerned, and that expenditure would be reduced to compensate for the increased vote needed for the Audit Office. It is, indeed, a strange system which allows a department to audit its own accounts, and then boasts of the economy of thft process. If every man might be his own judge and his own policeman, such retrenchments might be effected in both the departments concerned as would make the heart of the Colonial Treasurer sing for joy; 'but before the proposal could be accepted, even Sir Joseph Wittd wojdd »dmjfc that ether con^

siderationa than those of immediate economy must be regarded. An effective audit — like an effective police — must cost something, but the one no less than the other ia essential to the public safety, and in the long run conduces also to real economy. An absolutely independent audit of all public departments is an imperative necessity; and for all we want plain statements of fmanekl facts certified to by a statutory officer, instead of the present fog of hazy, unintelligible, and unvouched figures. Mr. Massey's motion was, of course, rejected by a substantial majority, but he has done a good service in bringing it forward, and we hope that ho will not let the matter drop.