"PUBLIC SCANDAL"

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 123, 20 November 1935, Page 12

"PUBLIC SCANDAL"

MR. HISLOP"S ATTACK

REPLY TO MINISTER

(Special to tho "Evening Post.")

EKETAHUNA, This Day.

A reply to the Minister of Lands (the Hon. Sir Alfred Ransom) in reference to the public accounts was made by the Leader of the Democrats (Mr. T. C. A. Hislop) in a speech at Eketahuna last evening.

"I am very pleased that Sir Alfred Ransom, as Government apologist-in-chief, has come forward in an attempt to justify the scandalous position of our public accounts," said Mr Hislop. "It gives me the opportunity of showing up the administration of the present Government in its true lights, and the manner in which its responsibilities have been so completely ignored. There is no need for me to 'magnify technical points into a public scandal,' as Sir Alfred Ransom stated All I needed to do was to quote the actual words and opinions of the AuditorGeneral, which one must place above even such an enlightened critic as Sir Alfred. The 1933 report of the committee of Public Accounts is no doubt valuable, but most of the things to which I referred have occurred subsequently. In any case the AuditorGeneral refers to the Public Accounts Committee in his report of 1935. There he states that he addressed memoranda to the chairman of the Committee on September 24, October 17 and 23, 1934, with reference to the audit matters under discussion. He says in his report: 'I do not propose now to enter into details concerning the subjects then submitted by audit, but I may mention that in the course of discussion differences were found to exist between the procedure and functions of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons and the procedure and functions of the corresponding Committee of the New Zealand House of Representatives. As these questions very closely affect the very important principle of the control of public expenditure by Parliament through its Committee, and also through the Controller and AuditorGeneral, who is an officer of Parliament, and as they also affect the constitutional position of the Controller and Auditor-General vis-a-vis the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament, I feel it desirable that the attention of Parliament should be called to the action taken by the Controller and Auditor-General in the hope that consideration may be given to the anomalies which appear to exist and which would seem to require early adjustment.' "NOT SATISFIED." "Never was there a more straightforv/ard statement that the Auditor. General is not satisfied with our publi:: accounts. He "calls the attention •;}'

Parliament ... in the iiope that consideration may be given to the anomalies which appear to exist . . .' "In 1931 the Auditor-General stated, with reference to Native Affairs: 'I feel it encumbent on me to mention j that from time to time I have made representations to the Treasury concerning the unsatisfactory position with regard to the methods employed in accounting for expenditure from the Native Land Settlement Account.' "This was in 1931. It was not until three years later that the whole of the Native Affairs scandal was exposed. Now we find the Auditor-General making representations of just as: serious a nature; —and his representations being again ignored, and in fact, being pooh-poohed by Sir Alfred Ransom. With reference to the statement that Sir Alfred attributes to me, that 'owing | to the practice adopted by the Treasury I it would be possible for public moneys to be utilised by private individuals' and so on, these are not my words but the words of the Auditor-General. CANNOT BE CALLED 'CASH." "Finally, the £14,000,000 which is shown in the Public Accounts as 'cash,' but which Sir Alfred Ransom states as being represented by 'fixed deposits,' or as 'investments,' is not "cash' and cannot be called 'cash' by any stretch of imagination. "If it has been invested in the funds of a Department, and utilised by that Department for its ordinary purposes, there is no cash available although there is an lOU. There is no question but that there has been wholesale bungling and juggling with our public accounts, and I think the word of the Auditor-General is reliable enough for mosj; people, even if it >.s not for Sir Alfred Ransom. I thank him. however, for the words—'a grave public scandal."