Post Audit.

Feilding Star, Volume II, Issue 351, 23 August 1907, Page 2

Post Audit.

At the present time there is a c<si- , siderable amount of prominence bei ing given to our system of audit, and I both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition are in favour of posti audit. Under the present method, no payment can be made by the Government, except in one way, with- : out the Audit Office having previously satisfied itself that the disburse- ; ment has been authorised by Parliament, and is in accordance with the law — of course, even the authority of Parliament cannot over-ride statute law. The exception we have .referrcc. to is ih regard to imprest accounts, and it is difficult to estimate the amount of these without "inside" knowledge, although they cannot be less than £200,000 a year. These accounts are audited after payment. We are aware that in a country under'tho dominion of representative government the system of audit after payment, which places the respon.ioil- ' ity for the legality of payments on the Ministry of the day, is the ideal r>.etbod; and the pre-audit system, of placing the responsibility on the Au-ditor-General, savours rather of usurpation of the powers of the repres.ritatives of the people. But that is not really so. The real danger of the post-audit system is that an pmjmo us amount of expenditure is really authorised by Ministers in only a perfunctory way, as it would bo impossible for them to scrutinise the details of each item in such a thorough manner as the trained staff of ibe Audit Office, and the real parties to the authorisation are the heads of departments and their subordinates, who would hardly 'be considered the representatives of Parliament or the people. Then the audit would not be completed until almost a year after the expenditure had been made, and that could hardly be called an efficient system of control. TW .lvii. ger of illegal expenditure would be minimised if the details of the expenditure were published immediately after the conclusion of the year, without waiting for audit, but it is questionable whether this course would be adopted. As a matter of fact, the trouble now is not in regard to the system of audit, but because of tho secrecy observed about Government expenditure, and if that bar to information were removed, wo are confident there would be no occasion to complain of .the system in force.