GOVERNMENT AUDITING.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 28 June 1933, Page 2

GOVERNMENT AUDITING.

A TRIBUTE TO THE SYSTEM. The Government’s audit services were commended during a discussion at the meeting of the Horowhenua Power Board yesterday. The Chairman (Mr Monk) stated that the account for the audit this year was about £6 less than was the case last year. Mr Hornblow mentioned that some' of the local bodies were making inquiries into what they called the excessive cost of audit fees. He understood that the Institute had a set scale of fees for auditing purposes. The question seemed to be how that compared with the Government’s fees. He was led to believe that, if a private auditor were engaged, the cost would be more than the Board was now paying to the Government for this service. It bad been ascertained on behalf of a different Board that, had it employed a private auditor, the chances were that it would have had to pay more than in the ‘case of the Government auditor. As the Government was to a certain extent interested in the Power Board’s affairs, he thought that it was advisable, provided that the fees were right, to retain the present system, Mr Seifert considered that the fee of £44 2s charged this year was reasonable, considering the amount of work that the auditor had to do —and he understood That the auditor did it particularly well. It was mentioned that the charge was for 14 days at £3 3s a day, and that probably more than that amount of time had actually been put in. The Chairman said that, in all his experience of local bodies’ accounts, the auditing had never been more efficiently audited than was now the practice. It was essential that this workr should be • done as early as possible after the annual balance. He could remember when years ago, local bodies had to beg for a Government auditor —and when the work was undertaken it was two years behind, which was no use at all. Now it was done promptly and well; the three local bodies with their headquarters in these chambers had already had their accounts audited. “If we go to the Department,” the Chairman added, (“and say, ‘You must cut down expenses,’ the only way they can do that is to get rid of some of their men. That means haying the work done on the old system, and I am not in favour of going back to that.” He thought that the charges were reasonable, and he would not like to interfere. The argument had been raised in some quarters that a 20 per cent, cut had been made in the salaries of the men working in the Audit office. He thought that the Government had made that cut primarily for the balancing of the budget. As to the claim that the saving should be passed on, he thought that the charge of £3 3s a day was not excessive. Mr Barber said that the Ma'nawatu County Council 'had thought that the audit fees charged to it were too stiff. It was only acting for the ratepayers in seeking a' reduction. He noticed that the charge to the Board showed a reduction of about £6.

“Systems of book-keeping change,’» the Chairman responded. I'he Secretary stated that a shorter time had- been occupied in the audit. The account was duly passed for payment.