TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20870, 9 November 1929, Page 10

TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

DOES IT CONTROL PARLIAMENT? DEBATE IN HOUSE. (From Oub Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, November 8. Questions, whether the Treasury controlled Parliament were raised in the House to-day when consideration was given the clause in the Finance Bill which gives the office full authority to employ for the keeping of the public accounts the methods it thinks fit in accordance with recognised principles. Mr \V. Downie Stewart (Reform member for Dunedin West) said he understood the necessity for the clause and pointed out that it would still be possible for the’ Audit Office to make representations to Parliament if conflict arose. ( There was a growing feeling that the Treasury, instead of being a servant of Parliament, was trying to be dominant, said Mr P. Fraser (Labour member for Wellington Central). In the judgment of the Minister of Justice (Mr T. M. Wilford) the clause was required because of the provisions of the Public Revenues Act. It was the function of the Controller and Auditor general to see that the money handed over was honestly and properly ex pended. Inquiry was made by the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) whether there had been a clash between the Treasury and the Auditor and Con-troller-general. The Acting Leader of the House (Mr G. W. Forbes) said that the proposal in the clause, which was one of internal working, would eliminate a good deal of red tape. It had been made clear to him that it was necessary to get something like commercial practice in the department. The view was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr J. G, Coates) that the amount of latitude which the Treasury should have was a matter for Parliament tn consider. The Bill appeared to give, wi(’ ;r powers to the Treasury in the control of other accounts. It was a question whether or not the Treasury was. not all-powerful from the country’s point of view. From the administrative standpoint that might be all right, but difficulties might occur under ths clause. There was danger ot a clash between departments. When the Bill was before the Upper House to-day the Leader of the Council (Mr T. K. Sidcy) intimated, after it had been referred to the Statutes Revision Committee for consideration of the clause, that he had interviewed the Acting Leader of the House in the mat ter, and the latter had agreed to take the necessary steps for the clause to bo deleted. Mr Sidey said he had represented to Mr Forbes the feeling that existed in the Council against the clause and a Governor-General’s Message would be brought down accordingly. It was proposed next session to introduce legis lation of a similar character, but it would be done earlier in the session so that fuller time would be allowed for its consideration. The amendment was approved by both Houses.