The Otago Daily Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1925. STATE DEPARTMENTAL METHODS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19549, 4 August 1925, Page 8

The Otago Daily Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1925. STATE DEPARTMENTAL METHODS.

Some of the statements which are contained in the report of the Controller and Auditor-Geimral on the public accounts for the past year are disturbing in their revelation of a looseness of method—to put it mildly—on the part of State departments and State officials. When attention was called to the report in the course of the debate last week on the Imprest Supply Bill, there seemed to be a disposition on the part of members of the Government to treat the matter rather lightly. The Prime Minister said "he was satisfied that the great bulk of the public servants were honest"—which has, in fact, never been questioned—and "that the position was not nearly so bad as the report made it appear." The Minister' gave it as his experience that the Auditor-General "sometimes asked the departments to observe rules which were wholly impracticable." "Sometimes," he added, "the departments were right and the Auditor-General was wrong." It is to bo regretted that Ministers employed language which, even if it might not be construed as a condonation of offences against common honesty on the part of employees of the State, was yet not expressive of a sense of indignation respecting the revelations. The AuditorGeneral is not performing more than his duty in directing attention to abuses, some of them of a very serious kind, that have come under his notice in the administration of the public estate, and ho is entitled to expect the full support of the Government in the endeavour to check them. Some of the departments, it seems, have neglected to adopt such regulations relative to the control of stores as would provide safeguards against peculation and loss. It can Hardly be suggested that the AuditorGeneral is "wrong" in claiming that regulations of tho necessary kind Rhould bo framed and observed and that the departments are "right" in clinging to an unsound method. An example of what has happened under the system lollowed in certain departments was quoted in the House from the AuditorGeneral's report: A Government officer, who was responsible for the requisitioning and issuing of certain storc-3 for his department, was at the same time interested in a certain firm which supplied the goods. It was fouifd on investigation that in some cases orders for goods were only partially executed by the tirm, but those goods which the firm did supply were subsequently issued by the officer marked at excessive prices. The excessive priceg covered up tho deficiency in tho deliveries. Goods which were never delivered were thus being paid for, and this process had boen carried on for years.

It does not appear from the report whether the official concerned in this discreditable transaction remains in the service. Presumably ho does, since no mention is made of his dismissal; but if he is still in the service his retention in it should be resented by the great bulk of the public servants for whose honesty Mr Coates unnecessarily vouches. The Auditor-General cites numerous cases of waste and other serious irregularities and abuses, amongst them the gratuitous issues of stores to the staffs of Government fanning institutions, the free issue of produce to departmental officers, and the improper use of Government motorcars. In one instance, "an officer of a Government department in four months used the departmental car for his own personal convenience 395 miles out of 017 run in the time.” Another revelation of interest that is made by the Auditor-General relates to the differences in prices paid for similar service under different contracts in different parts of the country.

A scrutiny of several contracts for a like service obtaining in the chief centres of the dominion disclosed the fact that the _ Auckland, Wanganui, Wellington. Christchurch, and Invercargill firms’ prices for a certain, item exceeded that of a Dunedin firm for the same item by 920 per cent., 1000 per cent., 740 per cent., 800 per cent., and 1070 per cent, respectively. Another item shows a difference of 840 per cent., 970 per cent., 640 per coni., 1300 per cent., and 1200 pet cent, respectively in excess of Dunedin.

These striking discrepancies are, the Auditor-General says, “only two out of roughly a, hundred items, and they may be considered a fair sample of the others.” Tho explanation that was offered concerning them was that “with the exception of tho Dunedin firm, the prices are controlled by a ring operating In each centre.” That is not an explanation, however, that justifies the purchase of supplies at prices that manifestly were outrageously excessive i t serves only to emphasise the defectiveness of the system under which Government stores are bought, while also, as the Auditor-General remarks “if this is a fair sample of the method of fixing prices to the public in regard to other services, it is not difficult to account for & considerable factor in the increased cost of living.”