PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Hokitika Guardian, 12 July 1935, Page 8

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

BETTER SYSTEM SOUGHT J WELLINGTON. July 9. The difference which appears to exist . Between the Councillor and | Auditor-General of the Dominion j {Mr G. E. C. Campbell) and the j Treasury about what the Auditor- | General claims to be the misleading j nature of the .public accounts in certain particulars, gives ground for the belief that the control of State expenditure in New Zealand is not as satisfactory as it should be, says a statement by the Associated Chamibers of Commerce of New Zealand Parliament, by special act nearly 70 years ago, set up the position of Controller and Auditor-General in guoli a manner that, whoever occupied it . would be rcsposible to no Minister —as Government departments . are responsible—but only to Parliament ... The Auditor - General has wide statutory powers on enquiry. inspection, and the examination of witnesses on oath, and he is removable from office only upon an . address to the Governor General by 1 both bouses of Parliament. His position has-- thus been made im j

pregnable except by tbe direct action of Parliament itself. Yet for all those powers vested in him, he has been left high and dry on certain points of procedure. The Public Accounts Committee of the English house of Commons is a body which works very closely indeed with the English Auditor-Gen-eral, Any complaints made by theAuditor General are immediately investigated and explanations sought, checking is applied not lonly to estimates for the current year, but also to expenditure for the past yeareven to the point for sifting the reasons why some public work is exceeding tbe estimate ot its cost. I he practice of the committee is to take, the initiative promptly and conscientiously in all such * matters, and with jealousy for fidelity in the presentation of the nation’s accounts. In New Zealand the procedure is much more loose. The Public Accounts Committee here certainly presents a report on the depart- j mental estimates of State expencli- ! ture, but with little more than that j its activity v ceases. For years the | Auditor-General has been drawing j attention in his annual reports to the i tendency to depart from established I

methods in the proper and efficient control by- Parliament over ' public expenditure, and Parliament and the PuDlic Accounts Committee have for years passed over those reports. ■ When, in 1933, the statement continues, the Auditor-General reported that certain of the public accounts . were misleading .about the changing of exchange, and the Public Accounts Committee inquired into ! these matters at the direction of the House, the committee belittled the report and said that efforts should * be made by the departments con- j cel-ned to reach an agreement on the accountancy practice to be adopted in tbe cases referred to. It was because no agreement could be reached by the departments concerned that the Auditor-General renewed his complaint about exchange costs i'll his next year’s report to Parliament, but no known action has been taken by Parliament or the Government in the matter, and tbe bands of the i Auditor-General, are tied, no further ' course of ( action .being open to him. I The Public Accounts Committee [ is now powerless to act of its own I volition in any matter at all relating i to the public, accounts. According I to the standing orders of the House, ,

the Public Accounts Committee has J lor many years Had power “to examine into and report upon such questions relating to the public accounts as it may think desirable. | In October, 1932, however, the standing order was altered, depriviug the committee of this power, and enabling it to inquire only into such matters "as may CTe referred to it b> the House or the Government.” In all the circumstances, the statement concludes, it appears that ! the placing of the Public Accounts > Committee on the 'proper -working, basis is ii matter of no small mi- | •portaiu'.e which should have the early attention of the House.