PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Northern Advocate, 23 November 1935, Page 11

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

PROPAGANDA CONI DEMNED STATEMENT BY MR PARK reflection upon officers. [Per Press Association. — Copyright's WELLINGTON, This Day. A further statement in reply to Mr T. C. A. Hislop’s attack on the Public Accounts has been issued by Mr A. D. Park, ex-permanent head of the

Treasury. Mr Park said; “Mr Hislop’s further remarks on the public accounts of the Dominion, while passing a grave reflection on the integrity of the officers holding responsible public positions, clearly revealed to those with an intimate knowledge of national finance the’ unfair tactics being adopted for political propaganda purposes. Mr Hislop is quoted as saying: T have had long and extensive business experience, and balance sheets and accounts are the same the world over.’ This is an extraordinary statement and wholly illustrates the unfortunate fact that Mr Hislop’s knowledge of the Public Accounts of New Zealand has been sadly neglected. “In the first place there is a vast difference between business finance, with its relative accounts, and national finance, with its accounts. To say even that business accounts are the same the world over is a stretch of the- imagination, but to suggest that the Public Accounts of this Dominion are the same as something in some other part of the world displays a great deal of ignorance. “None Is the Same.”

“I have personally seen and discussed the Public Accounts of several other parts of the Empire with the respective Treasury heads and I can say, without fear of contradiction, that none of them is the same, .in fact I can go further and say that the Public Accounts of New Zealand are I more advanced in the direction of J commercial accountancy than those of almost any other part of the Empire. This process of advancement is in progress and much yet remains to be done to co-ordinate fully and amalgamate the old statutory type of hybrid cash accounts with' the jnore scientific accountancy practices recognise# in commercial circles. Differences of Opinion. “It is in the process of this development which the chambers of commerce strongly advocated, and the New Zealand Society of Accountants and other j accountancy organisations fostered

and assisted, that the differences of opinion on technical details arose between the Audit Department and the Treasury. The Treasury holds the statutory responsibility for the form in which the Public Accounts-' are presented, while the Audit Department retains the unfettered right of criticism in its reports to Parliament. The significance of these reports involves technical matters which are not easily understandable by a layman unskilled in accounts or national firiance. The interpretation which Mr Hislop placed on them and attempts to make political capital out of is unworthy of serious reflection.”

After discussing Mr Hislop’s charges in detail, Mr Park again emphasised that the Audit Department in no way raised any objections to the actual transactions themselves, which were quite legitimate, and in accordance with the law and had been subjected to audit investigations, and duly passed as in order. It objected only to the method of recording those transactions in the Public Accounts, which, it considered, was inaccurate and misleading to Parliament and the public. Mr Park added that his statement arose from the fact that he was a member of professional bodies of accountants in the Dominion, and that the Public Accounts in question were issued over his signature, as head of the Treasury.