IMPREST ACCOUNTS.

New Zealand Mail, 27 August 1902, Page 48 (Supplement)

IMPREST ACCOUNTS.

POST OFFICE AND THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT. THE MATTER REPORTED TO PARLIAMENT. The Auditor-General has submitted to tho Speaker of the House of Representatives correspondence which has recently passed between the Audit Department and the Treasury' concerning certain items of unauthorised expenditure that were entered in the public accounts for the quarter ended June 30th, 1902, for tho service of telegraph extension. These items were excluded, according to tho correspondence, because they wero payments of unauthorised expenditure which the state of the account concerning such matters precluded from being entered for the reason that tho statutory limit of £150.000 had already been reached. The expenditure had been met by the Post Office, out of moneys not issued as a charge to tho Public Works Fund, and the requisition comprises vouchers for payments made as far back as February last amounting to £12.023 3s 9d. * The Treasury explained that the delay in furnishing returns was occasioned by the delay in obtaining Imprest Supply. It happens with the Post Office as with other departments, that the actual expenditure is not precisely' in accord with tho estimates.

The Audit Department then objected that tho vouchers for the whole amount wero passed in time for the amounts to have been entered in the Public Accounts of tho previous quarter, and the office also took objection that it was not justifiable by the Public Revenues Act for the Post Office, as Imprestee, to make payments chargeable to the unauthorised expenditure account out of moneys not issued by way of Imprest as a charge to that account.

. Tho Treasury reiterated its explanation that tho state of the “Unauthorised Expenditure Account” was such as to preclude their being entered, aiTd also pointed out that tho rules were framed years ago to meet different circumstances, when payments were not nearly so large.To this the Audit, Department replied that provision for unauthorised expenditure was not a vote—but a matter subject to statutory conditions not imposed on the payment of expenditure under a vote (see sections 47 and >4B Public Rev. Act. “Where those conditions are not observed.” the department says, "the payments are not lawfully made.” "The Treasury and the Audit Department can prevent the pavment of voueher from exeeeding the statutory limit of £lo0,000.” The report concludes, 'and as tho Public Revenues Act does not provide for or contemplate such a contingency as that which has arisen, the Controller and Auditor-General requests that Parliament be informed of the matter.”