A RETURN AND A CABLEGRAM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12929, 27 July 1905, Page 6

A RETURN AND A CABLEGRAM.

_ .» ■ ■; ALLEGED INACCURACIES. ■ ' FINANCIAL METHODS. s SEVERE CRITICISM IN PARLIAMENT. v .• [l? :-. [by telegraph.— correspondent.] Wellington, Wednesday. In the House of Representatives to-day the Government were submitted to a good deal of very damaging criticism, and what with the State coal mine,' the charging of items to capital that should be charged to revenue, and the supplying of incorrect returns and telegrams, Ministers were several times in a tight corner. . .

The first question on the Order Paper was one by Mr. Jas. Allen, regarding a return about education expenditure presented to Parliament by Mr. Seddon. Mr. Allen drew attention to the discrepancy between Mr. Seddon's return and the figures in another Parliamentary paper. v

Mr. Seddon stated that by a clerical error the first period in return'l was written

" 1900-01 " instead of "1890-91." The figures in 'both returns were otherwise correct.'

The next question was by Mr. Duthie, and was in regard to a telegram sent to the British press by the Agent-General as to the effect of the preferential tariff. Mr. Duthie in his question showed! that the telegram, according to our official statistics, was erroneous, and conveyed a wrong impression. He asked if, in the presence of these facts, and as the public had through this cablegram been misinformed by the Agent-General, would the Premier take prompt steps to correct the regrettable error? "

Mr. Seddon stated that the Government was not called upon to explain differences between 1 what might appear in the English press and what might have been published in the official Blue Books. V

Mr. Jas. Allen- complained that the Premier should have deliberately laid on the table of the House,, and circulated throughout the colony by means of Hansard and his speeches on the platform, -a return that was so misleading. It was just 10 years wrong. However, the return had done its work. It had got a good start, and he (Mr. Allen) could not catch it up. It was a false return. It was, however, now stated to 'be a clerical error, but the Minister who allowed it to go forth was to blame. It was a sample of what was going on in connection with the Government finance. Members could place no reliance upon the figures they got. from 'the Minister for Finance and Education. In regard to the question asked by Mi*. Dutliie, the telegram was sent by the Premier to the English press, He did not deny that, and- he. could) not deny it.' Thus they had two instances in which it was proved that the Ministry had misrepresented figures. If they admitted the error in those two cases, how many other wises were there in which there were similar misrepresentations?" They could place no reliance on. the Premier. Then there was another question he had asked, viz., if the material used for the maintenance of the telegraph lines was paid for. out of appropriations from the Consolidated Fund, or out of appropriations from the Public Works Fund? The, reply was as follows:—"It is difficult to determine whether certain, works, such as improving lines, changing their routes, adding new* instruments to offices, replacing old apparatus with'new, "should be charged to maintenance or construction. , The practice followed for the last 40 years obtains, and the adjustment of the accounts, which has been receiving attention, must ensue gradually." Well, some time ago it. was denied that these items were paid for out of public works. Now the answer was given that it was difficult to determine whether such things as replacing old apparatus with new should be charged to capital or revenue. It was an eye-opener to' find that such items in the Telegraph Department, which was supposed to be well managed, were charged to capital instead of , revenue; and ho was afraid that when business men came to real-;' ise what was going on they would" not place much reliance on our financial methods. Where it would lead'to he could not say. . v

'The Premier in his replysaid that the error in. regard to.the education returns occurred iu the typist's transcription from the original. It was an error, he said, which might -very easily be made. In regard to the cablegram mentioned in Mr. Duthie's question, he asked whether Ministers wore to be held responsible for something which appeared: in the British press. The Government did not feel called upon, to correct anything . which appeared in the press, either in this or any other country. The Agent-General, he slid, was kept busy every week of his life in correcting erroneous statement* which" appeared. Untrue statements respecting* the colony were sent deliberately from New Zealand to the British press." ' , ' ~ '" '. ■'' ' " ' I Mr. J. Allen; By whom,? Mr. Seddon: "By the press representatives, and I believe the honourable gentleman incites them to do it.- The press representatives do not know any better, but they do these things to please the honourable gentleman." Why, he asked, should he be expected to answer, a statement which appeared in the British press? , ' Mr. J. Allen: No. The question is, did you send the cablegram? .- .'; , ' Mr. Seddon: That is not the question: The nuestion is about something which appeared! in the British press. The honourable gentleman thinks when he gets in a comer. " ; • ■ •Mr. Allen: You are in the corner. ' Mr. Seddon: ' So far as the Government are concerned, we have nothing to withdraw.