IMPERIAL PAYMENTS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1746, 23 August 1905, Page 2

IMPERIAL PAYMENTS

QUESTION OP AUDIT.

DOUBEY PAID CONTINGENTERS.

THE STORES CONTRACTS. The Colonial Treasurer was asked in the House of Representatives on Wednesday by Mr Herdman whether payments made out of moneys, received from the Im--perial Government for . disbursement in New Zealand are audited; if so, by whom ? Mr Seddon said the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Hey wood, was the Pay-master-General, and was responsible for the payment of claims made against the Imperial Government, and payments* made, in this colony but of Imperial funds are duly audited by the Imperial Audit Department. ; Mr Herdman said that a young man ■ who had served in one of the New Zealand Contingents a few months ago received a letter from some Government department asking him to refund <£46 paid to him erroneously, and intimating that if the amount was not refunded legal proceedings would be taken. There ~ were similar cases. It showed that there was laxity in the administration of the ' Imperial funds. The Auditor-General wanted to audit these funds, but correspondence showed that the Colonial Treasurer would not let him do so, believing it was sufficient if the Under-Secretary for Defence examined them., ■ ■ ' Mr Thy lor said the Auditor-General had pointed out that the Colonial Treasurer was not justified in informing the Imperial authorities that his (the Audi-tor-GeneraTs) demand for ' information was responsible for the accumulation of a -large number of vouchers. _ This brought up the whole question of - vouchers. Why should members not have the right to inspect these vouchers > themselves ? Why this concealment? -Half a million of money had been spent by‘ the Government on behalf of, the Imperial Government, and it was alleged that’ a sum of =£30,000 or £240,000 had been expended by the Government in a • way that had been repudiated by the Imperial authorities, and . had consequently become a charge- upon the Consolidated Fund of the colony, because the proof of expenditure was not sufficient. Was this true? Mr Seddon said the payment to the cbntingenter mentioned by Mr Herdman, was 'not an isolated;' case. When the cbntingenters left their regiments many . went to hospitals and some were sent home. Duplication of payments arose, and when the accounts were, examined it was found that a very large number had been oyer-paid, through no fault of theirs nor of the officers in South Africa. The fact remained that there were over-payments. At all events, there were scores of such cases. The Imperial authorities said) under all the circumstances, and considering the situation of the recipients, discretion would be left as to any proceedings taken for recovery. He believed some of the men had been sued, but if the matter had been referred to him, when payments had been made under these circumstances, he did not think the men would have been ‘•sued. Take the oats, contracts: In all

these cases large sums of money were involved; but the New Zealand Government had nothing to do with them. The purchases were made direct by the Imperial authorities through their agents here, and all that the New Zealand Government was asked to do was to inspect or grade the oats supplied for the troops. 1 If any question in regard to the supply of oats or food had been raised, there was a complete answer to it. Situated as they were at the time of the South African war, with a crisis in the history of the country, all they did was to help the Imperial authorities, and now to cast a reflection upon the New Zealand Government in connection with these contracts was unfair, for the Government had no responsibility in respect to the matter at. all. The trouble about the audit was this: There was a large accumulation of vouchers that had to be pre-audited before payment was made, and this blocked business. Mr Taylor: The auditor denies it. Mr Seddoh: This conies to me from the Paymaster. The Treasury represented this to me and I simply sent it on to the Imperial authorities. There was i the Paymaster, Secretary of the Treasury, and Under-Secretary for Defence, and every voucher was carefully examined and . certified to, independent altogether of myself and the Government. It seemed to him' they were coming face to face with this: .That they were to be held responsible now for the actions of the Imperial Government. He declined to be placed in that position. At the commencement of the' war they placed their services at the disposal of the Imperial Government, and lie thought that what had been done in tins respect by those .connected with the departments reflected great credit upon them. In 1902 the whole of this question was brought before the Public Accounts Committee, and thoroughly examined, so why revive these old matters at this late period? As to the demand that members of Parliament should be allowed to go down to the Treasury and have access to all the vouchers, what member of Parliament, he asked, was there who would set himself .up as an aditor against that which had been audited by the Auditor and Controller-General ? In regard to the statement that the Imperial authorities had repudiated a payment of £30,000 or ..£40,000, as alleged by the member for Christchurch, he desired to aa vtliat it was entirely without foundat ion.