THE AUDITOR-GENERALS REPORT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1748, 6 September 1905, Page 17

THE AUDITOR-GENERALS REPORT

STORY OF THE INVESTIGATION. NO SUCH DOCUMENT, The Speaker presented to the Hous# of Representatives last Wednesday the report of the Auditor-General (Mi Warburton) in regard to the voucher inquiry. It is as follows: — "In obedience to the request of the House of Representatives that I should inquire and report in terms of the petition of J. B. Hey wood, Secretary to the Treasury, R. J. Collins, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, and T. F. Grey, acting Under Secretary for Defence, and that such inquiry should include the whol« period of Captain Seddon’s employment in the Public Service: "I have the honour most respectfully to state that I have inquired accordingly,, and to report that in my opinion the certificates in question are correct in substance and in fact. "That during the whole period of Captain Seddon's employment t. in the Public Service —from 31st , March. ISOS, to 30th June, 1905—* no voucher was ever issued and passed through the Treasury for a payment to him for the organisation or reorganisation of defence stores. "That no such voucher exists, and that no such payment was ever made, and I beg leave to submit a copy of the correspondence and minutes of evidence.” ' MR SEDDON’S MOTION. Mr Seddon moved the following resolution:— ' That the report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the petition of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and the Under Secretary for Defence, in respect to an alleged payment of between «£7O and JSSO for the reorganisation of the defence stores, together with the evidence, correspondence and papers, be laid upon the table and be printed, and that consideration of the same be fixed for •next sitting day. The Premier thought he would bo voicing the desires of hon members, and doing what was in the best interests of . all concerned, if the evidence which accompanied the report was first laid upon the table, and printed, and circulated before they proceeded to consider the question of the report itself. (Hear, hear.) THE AMENDMENT. Mr Taylor gave notice to move tho following amendment:— And in view of the failure of) the private inquiry held by the Auditor-General under s the restricted order of reference designed by the Premier to discover the voucher which Messrs Larcombe, West, Willis and Lundon, four experienced and reputable Civil servants in the Christchurch'T > ost Office, swear they handled, examined and discussed, this House is of opinion that the present unsatisfactory position of the question in dispute should be met by the immediate appointment of a public inquiry, with a full power to investigate, call for evidence upon oath, order the production of persons and papers and the parties concerned, or permit counsel representing them to appear. THE PREMIER IN REPLY. Mr Seddon thought hon members would recognise, from what the member for Christchurch had intimated, that he (the Premier) had good grounds for stating to the House that before consideration -was given to this question, they ought to have the evidence before them. To intimate such a proposal as that given by Mr Taylor, without members, being in possession of the evidence, would be, to his mind, unjust. In this matter be had exercised, he "trusted, dignified restraint under circumstances that very few men would have. Until the House had the evidence before it, be did not think they sh6uld do any-

thing to cast a reflection upon a Parliamentary officer, because the Auditor and Controller-General was a Parliamentary officer. What had been done now by the member for Christchurch, before he had perused the evidence upon which the report had been founded, was to question the report and the conclusions arrived atj and was practically asking the House to countenance a course without having any evidence whatever in respect to it. ; Mr Taylor rose to a point of order. He questioned the Premier’s right to discuss the matter now. The Speaker ruled the Premier had an undoubted right to make a speech in reply to anything that might . have been said. " The Premier thanked the Speaker for his ruling. Under the circumstances, he was not at all exultant. He felt honoured that day, but at the same time there was a bitter and deep pang of regret, because he felt that Parliament, in respect to .this matter, had been placed in a most unfortunate position, and anything that lowered the tone of the House or Parliamentary institutions was to be deplored. He effaced ail personal considerations. His first consideration was —and the first consideration of the Parliament ought to be —the honour of Parliament itself ; but the action of the member for Christ'church appeared to him to be going to extreme lengths. Would it not have been more consistent with British fairplay for the hon member to have seen the evidence for himself, and after reading it, if he was convinced that the Auditor-General had not founded his report upon evidence to warrant the same, then to have given notice of the motion which he had placed before the House that day ? The hon member had declared in the columns of the press that he intended, no matter what the report was, to question the decision of the Auditor-General; and not only that, hut he impugned the audit system itself. He did not like to apply a term which was uppermost in his mind at. the moment. As he had said, the position he held as leader of the House and Prime Minister of the' country debarred him descending to the level of the hem gentleman. There were these three Government officials, holding high positions, whose certificates . had been impugned. Parliament had referred this question to the Auditor-General, and the hon member representing Wellington, Mr Fisher, expressed his satisfaction with the tribunal that had been set up. That being the case, he hoped he (Mr Fisher) would not now question his (the Premier’s)] statement, because it was in the records of the House. Later on, Mr Fisher expressed the opinion that he would like a judicial tribunal. Let them peruse - the evidence upon which this report was founded, and for his part he cared not what tribunal was created, there could only be one result. There were two persons interested in any payment. The one was the person who received it ;the other was the person who paid. “I know,” said Mr Seddon, "that the one dear to- me never received. I know the one who is alleged to have paid never paid. Then what can you give in the interim as regards those who are making this allegation ? Let it be known from the housetops of this colony that what has led to the mistake has been the discovery of another Sneddon voucher.” (Sensation.) The hon member for .Wellington knew that a second Sneddon voucher was discovered ; it was for £74 Bs, and—another coincidence- —paid in the month of June. Mr Sneddon in the public press bad stated that there were other vouchers and other receipts, and those who made the initial mistake went through the list, and asked for six vouchers, and these were for between £7O and £BO paid in Christchurch. Now, tbesd vouchers were produced, and in every case they were found to be correct as regards the very day, but no payments were made to Captain Seddon. He (the Premier) had anticipated to some slight extent the evidence, but in the interests of those whose honour was assailed, he thought he was justified in making this announcement to the House and country. That would account for the discrepancy, and for the manner in* which Government officials had been misled, and, being, misled, had misled the hon gentleman. He expressed no opinion on the matter beyond this: Were we tb have our public service maintained with honour and with safety? Was it to he understood that Government officers, having certain vouchees passing through their hands, could go to members of Parliament and to others outside the House and disclose the public business of the colony? Let them suppose that it was a telegram going through the Telegraph Department. Was an officer to go to a firm, a member of Parliament, or someone outside, and say, “I feel there is something wrong, and I refuse to send a telegram through which I believe to be improper.” If that was to be the case, all confidence in the Post and Telegraph Department would be irretrievably shaken. Public confidence must be restored, and public confidence would; be restored. There was a proper and constitutional manner provided, and there was no doubt that course must inevitably be followed in this matter. There would be no martyrs so far as the Government was concerned. There must be justice to all concerned, and whMst do-

mg justice to others, he hoped the country would do justice to him and his. (Hearty applause from members.} The Premier’s motion, that the report lie on the table, and the evidence he printed, was agreed to. POSITION OF FOUR CIVIL SERVANTS. THE PROBABLE~PUNISHMENT. MR TAYLOR IN DEFENCE. THE PREMIER’S VIEWS. The "voucher question” again occupied the attention of the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon. Mr Taylor asked the Premier when the report of the Auditor-General would come up for consideration? What were the prospects for its discussion? Would it come up again this session? The Premier had made a promise on Wednesday that the report would come up for consideration next day. Sir Joseph Ward, in the temporary absence, of the Premier, said ‘no such promise was made. What the Premier had stated was that he desired to get the evidence printed, and had fixed the consideration of the report for "next sitting day”—a Parliamentary term to enable the matter to he subsequently dealt with. There was a distinct understanding on Wednesday that questions and Ministers’ answers were to be dealt with next day. Mr Taylor said he rose to protest against the motion for the suspension of the standing orders for the taking of questions. He did so upon the ground that a distinct promise, was made by the head of the Government that the report of the Auditor-General would come up for consideration "next sitting day.” After his Parliamentary experience, he knew what that term meant, and he was not, therefore, disappointed, but a large number of people in the country would feel that the report should be. discussed withoiyt delay. It might be said that the evidence was not printed, but that showed that an ordinary newspaper was more enterprising in regard to the publication of a matter of this kind than the Government Department, because the newspapers throughout the colony had practically published the evidence that had been given before the inquiry. The Premier might consider, after what, had taken place, that the matter had been finally disposed of, but he desired to point out that the evidence in the report was so conflicting—and it was within the Premier’s power to so manipulate the order paper as to push this motion up and down—that the House should not he deprived of the opportunity of expressing its opinion as to what must be done in this matter, in view ox the conflict of testimony. He knew that the term “next sitting day” would not enable it to come on. The general impression, however, was that the Audi-tor-General’s report, the quality of it, and its merits, would come under the review of the House. A point had now been reached where he was - bound to stand up in defence of the honour of men who were his constituents, and whom he believed to be absolutely hon-* ourable men, and he must’secure a discussion of this matter on tbe floor of the House, as they must be protected against any arbitrary punishment the Premier might be inclined to mete out to them. Members were free in their opinions that it meant the dismissal of four men. He stood there in the capacity of the Parliamentary representative of these men, and it was entirely on that account he wanted an opportunity of discussing the Auditor-General’s report.. They could not do that unless the Premier redeemed what the public would regard as* an honourable pledge given on the previous day. There seemed to be a fear that it might not be redeemed. By "next sitting day” the publie believed it to be the next day, and not a vague Parliamentary term that placed the position under the control of Ministers. He wanted to be assured that this question would come up on a specific day, because the course that might be taken by the Ministry might inflict an unwarrantable injury upon men who believed they had done a public duty. These men had a right to have their side of the question placed before members and no action in regard to them should be taken until the opinion of the Parliament had been expressed upon the, report. The Premier roe© to a point of order. He asked if the hon member was in order in discussing the report on a motion to suspend the standing orders? The Speaker : I must remind the hon member that he must not go into the merits of the question. Mr Taylor: I have no desire to transgress your ruling. I want to read a telegram I have received Mr Seddon: What’s that got to do with the suspension of the standingorders? How can it have anything to do with the question before the House? Mr Taylor: It bears on the question in this way—•— ,

The Speaker: If therq, is'any doubt about it, the question must be submitted to tbe Speaker to. decide. Mr Taylor banded • the telegram to the Speaker for perusal. The Speaker: I think this telegram should' not be read now. The proper time to read it will be when the mo-

tion and amendment ana before the House.

Mr Taylor: Then I will conclude by urging that the Premier should give the House an indication when this report should come up for discussion. It will be better to have a straight-out debate to force on a discussion, on a no-confidence motion, on this particular voucher. I am anxious that the forms of the House should be maintained, but there is no one who transgresses the forms of the House more than the Premier himself. My plea is that we should be allowed to discuss this matter in a constitutional manner.

Mr Seddon: The statement that I transgress the forms of the House is absolutely inaccurate, and a reflection upon myself, and I must ask you to rule, sir, 'whether the hon. member should make such a statement, more especially considering that within the space of ten minutes you have ruled him three times out of order.

The Speaker: The hon. member is bound to accept the Premier’s statement. (Laughter.)

Mr Taylor: Without hesitation the House will accept the Premier’s statement. (Laughter.) Mr Fisher said he would put this to the Premier: It must be recognised that members of the House were getting somewhat tired of this question. There was no doubt whatever about it, bub every time this question came up it was a source of warm feeling between members, and also outside the House. They wanted it ended, but desired to face the music, and he asked the Premier to set a day apart as early as possible for the discussion of this matter, and get it finally disposed of one way or another. They did not want any delay whatever. If the Premier had so desired, the private evidence could have been in the hands of members at nine o’clock that morning. The Premier had made an ex parte statement, which had gone throughout the length and breadth of the land, and it was not easy to catch it up. If the Premier would give them "the facility, they would discuss the question right now.

Mi- Seddon said that on the previous day, by consent, it had been arranged to disorganise the business of the House (Thursday was local bills day) in order that questions (usually taken on Wednesday) might come on, and that the House should proceed -with the land debate in the evening. On the representation of members, he had allowed the Shops and Offices Bill in committee to intervene. Having made a promise of that kind, he had arranged the orderpaper accordingly. Up to the present he had exercised considerable restraint. The attitude now taken by the hon. member for Christchurch was evidence of his brazen-faced effrontery, and really he was surprised himself Mr Taylor: I rise to a point of order. The Speaker ruled that the term must be withdrawn. Mr Seddon withdrew it. He admitted that it was a rather strong term, but no term that came within the scope of Parliamentary language was sufficiently strong to characterise the action of' the hon. member, in whose bosom the finer feeling did not permeate. Mr Taylor: Ha, ha. (Ironical laughter.) Mr Seddon: He can give the lash, but when he receives it, he ’ -winces, whines, and cowers. I was about to say, there was a day when the finer feelings of mankind Mr Taylor: Don’t go too far. Mr Seddon: The hon. member has been accusing me of breaking faith with the House and of violating its rules, but the moment I say a- few words and give expression to my feelings, and couch it in Parliamentary language, then the hon. member doesn’t seem to like it. We’re not going to disorganise the business of the country to deal with a question that has been already dealt with, and to which there can he no reply. I think myself that what has been said by Mr Fisher simply voices the opinions of the House and the opinions of the country, when he said members were tired of this question. I have no doubt he must be tired of it, and if he had allowed his better nature to prevail, and 3iad not been led by those who were net his friends, the unfortunate position in which he is placed to-day would have been avoided. Mr Fisher: Absolutely wrong. Mr Seddon: The hon member says he warts to face the music. At all events, the tune he is playing grates upon the feelings of everyone in this colony. It we’re to descend much further upon the lines that he and others have laid down, then every man in the country who respects himself will hesitate to offer his services to the electors of this colony. There was a time' —and I hope the time may soon arrive again—when it was an honour and a credit to be a member of the House of Representatives of New Zealand, and if the low level to which it has been dragged down recently is to continue or not must depend upon the colony and upon, members of the House themselves. Mr Taylotf: What about the Hinemoa expenses?i

Mr Seddon: When everything els* fails the hon member tries to draw, something else into the maelstrom he and his friends have created. I think the hon member ought -to realise that I am not to be drawn from the question before the House. The answer to the question put by the hon member and his friends is very complete. In regard to the officers alluded to by the hon member, he must feel that a situation had been created, and created by the action of departmental officers of the public service, that was dishonourable, and whichever way they looked at the matter, it meant the lowering of the service, and there were none in this country who were more deeply sensitive of the great dishonour and injury done to the service than those in the service themselves. Right throughout the length and breadth of the service in this colony with one voice they were crying out against what had been done, because it brought discredit upon honourable men, and men who had re arson to feel it more keenly than members of the House. But that would not for a moment cause himself and his colleagues to do that which was unjust, or to act harshly, or to violate the rules and conditions of the service in which these men were engaged. These men would, in accordance with the rules of the Civil Service, be dealt with in due course. It was quite possible that another course would be taken outside these men altogether, which the member for Wellington, Mr Fisher, would probably appreciate—if he believed in what was right and. just, the hon member wouid appreciate it. The AuditorGeneral’s report would be duly dealt with, but it would not be dealt with until tbe land resolutions before tbe House had been disposed of. He could not compare the land question with the report of the Auditor-General, nor could he consent to stop all other, business. The time had arrived when he should treat all other remarks on this question with the contempt they merited. The one and only regret was that there were those within the walls of our Parliament representing the people and having a responsibility upon them, who had so discarded all that was righteous and honourable in descending to such a course as they had taken in this case. When he had stated that the question would be considered " next sitting day,” he had made no promise as to any definite day on whiich the debate would he taken. He had given no promise whatever. He desired ohe House to clearly understand that he was not going to* allcw the disorganisation of tbe order of business. The hon member would he given an opportunity, but he was not go ng to allow those who had wronged him, wronged the country, and lowered the tone of Parliament to fix the day when this question should come forward. The subject then dropped. THE TELEGRAM. ' The following is the telegram which Mr Taylor desired to read during the course of debate: —" We are confident unrestricted public inquiry will establish charge. Hope you will press your motion. (Signed) Willis, Larcombe, YVeet, Lundon.”