AFTER MUCH ENQUIRY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 112, 7 November 1912, Page 6

AFTER MUCH ENQUIRY

After all the long days of enquiry, the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the operations of the State-guar-anteed Advances Office was presented to the House of Representatives last night, and promoted a debate which did not end till after 8 o'clock this morning. The report is a remarkable document, from various viewpoints, especially when the words which caused the investigation are recalled. A suggestion was made or implied by Ministerialists—chiefly the Hon. James Allen— that the Ward Government tried to gain political advantages in the allocation of loans to local bodies prior to the elections of last December. There was no charge of corruption, but there was an imputation of objectionable discrimination. Those statements indirectly implicated the Advances Board, which was exposed to a suspicion that it had been amenable to Ministerial pressure in an electioneering scheme. The impression left on the public mind wae that the Ward Government had been accused of a political misdemeanour, and that the board had been swayed by Ministerial influence, la jihe circumstance*, we belijve thit-the

Superintendent of the Department was justified in sending an official letter to Mr. Allen, requesting an enquiry into tho matter. The committee's report eaj-s in effect that the Superintendent had wrongly assumed that his board had been charged with submitting to political influence. In fact, the report keeps clear of the suggestions of political influence which caused most of the excitement originally. Tho document ia mainly concerned with the ordinary msuittgo* ment of the Department, . which is charged with the loss of between £22,000 and £23,000 during the whole period of its existence. The causes, as stated by tho committee, were:— (a) The board's difficulty in finding immediate investment* for the funds at credit of the loans to local authorities account ; and (b) the insufficiency of the remission ot 10s per cent, allowed to the Department to cover expenses and loss of interest whilst the moneys remained uninvested. The board is also blamed for committing the Department to advances three years ahead, at rates which might be below those which the State would have to pay on the loans. The gravamen of the finding is that "insufficient control was exercised in administering the loans to local authorities," and a change in the board's personnel is recommended. During the debate on the report, which was adopted, the Prime Minister said that two new appointments would be made. We agree, as all fair critics must agree, that the board wae wrong in making commitments so far ahead as three years, but our opinion is that the recommendation of "change in personnel" was too drastic. If it was at all desirable to make a change, this should have been a course for the Government to take on evidence later on. Such a step, at thus time, after suspicions, not proved, had grown up against the boaxd as the result of Ministerial statements in the House savours of- injustice to public officers with admirable records of service to the State.