PREMIER’S RETORT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 303, 20 November 1935, Page 9

PREMIER’S RETORT.

CRITICISM OF ACCOUNTS

REPLY TO MR HISLOP

Per Press Association

GORE, Nov. 19. Speaking at Balclutha yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr Forbes) made a sharp retort to the references of the leader of the Democrat Party (Mr T. C. A. Hislop) to the method or presenting public accounts with quotations from the report of the Auditor-General. Mr Hislop had made a statement about the accounts being grossly mismanaged, implying misappropriation, etc., said Mr Forbes. “He has picked out certain of the comments of the Auditor-General, but does not mention an important paragraph in which the Auditor-General stated that he raised no objection whatever to the accounts themselves, the transactions all being correct and properly audited, but he complained about, the form in which the accounts were presented.” Mr Forbes said that this argument had been going on between the Auditor-General and the Treasury for a long time. The Auditor-General had said that the way of presenting the accounts was not right, and the Treasury said it was in accordance with accountancy practice and with the way the British Treasury presented its ac-

counts. Mr Hislop had merely picked out some of the comments of the Auditor-General and construed them as misappropriation and juggling of accounts, apparently trying to create the impression that there was dishonesty in the matter. “In my 27 years in Parliament I do not know of one single instance where a member has in any way brought himself under the charge of using his position for personal advantage,” proceeded Mr Forbes. “When Mr Hislop comes forward as the champion of honesty and carefully omits the paragraph where the Auditor-General says he does not raise the question of the correctness of accounts he should also have presented the full statement. I suppose he felt it was political tactics. He’s a new man at the game, but I think as time goes on lie’ll find there , is a standard to live up to and when f

it is question of impugning the honesty of the Government or a member of Parliament actual evidence is required, as innuendoes recoil on the men who make them.”

MR HISLOP’S REJOINDER

ALLEGATION REPEATED

Per Press Association

EKETAHUNA, Nov. 19. Referring to Sir Alfred Ransom’s reply to his statements regarding the public accounts, Dir T. C. A. Hislop said there was no need for him to magnify technical points into a public scandal, as Sir Alfred had stated. All he needed to do was to quote the actual words and opinions of the Auditor-General. In his reports the Auditor-General had given a straightforward statement that he was not satisfied with the public accounts. In 1931 the Auditor-General had drawn attention to the unsatisfactory position in regard to the methods employed in accounting for expenditure from the Native Land Settlement account. It was not until three years later that the whole of the Native Affairs scandal was exposed. Regarding the £14,000,000 which was shown in the public accounts as cash, but which Sir Alfred Ransom stated was represented by fixed deposits or investments, this money was not cash and could not be called cash by any stretch of the imagination. If it had been invested in the funds of a department and utilised by the department for its ordinary purposes there was no cash available, although there was an 1.0. U. There was no question but that there had been wholesale bungling and juggling with the public accounts, and the word of the AuditorGeneral was reliable enough for most people. , Dir Hislop stated that he had asked Mr Coates certain questions in regard to the gold that had been taken by the Government from the banks. So far Mr Coates had ignored the questions, but he asked them again as he believed the people were entitled to an answer. Mr Hislop said he believed it to be the intention of the Government to make this next Parliament a five-year Parliament. Mr Coates had spoken strongly in favour of extended Parliamentary terms and the Government had persistently referred to the necessity for long-range planning and the fact that its policy proposals would take some time to be put into effect. Neither Mr Forbes nor Mr Coates had stated that they would not extend the life of Parliament. It would be tragic for the country if they had to suffer the present Government until 1940, and this was a possibility if the Nationalists were returned at the forthcoming election.