The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1901.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 3625, 23 August 1901, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1901.

Under our Parliamentary heading this morning will be found a report of a debate which took' place yesterday in the House, on a report brought up by the Public Accounts Committee in regard to certain disputes between the Treasury and the Audit Office, under Section 9 of the Public Revenues Act, 1900. The provisions of that section are of great importance, and we therefore quote it in its entirety:—"ln case any difference of opinion arises between the Audit Office and the- Treasury as to the vote ;> appropriation, fund, account, or other authority to which any expenditure ought to be charged, or as to the proper head of revenue, fund, or account, to which any receipt should be credited, the question shall be determined by the Treasurer, and his determination shall be laid be'fore Parliament as provided by Section 53 of the principal Act: Provided that if, in the opinion of the Audit Office, the question involves matter of law, then it shall be determined by the Governor, having before him the opinion of the Attorney-General ■thereon; and ini such case the objectipn of the Audit Office, the opinion of the •Attorney-General, and the determination of the Governor shall be laid before Parliament as provided by Section 53 of the principal Act." The principal Act is the Public Revenues Act, 1891. Our Parliamentary report gives no particulars as to four of the cases of dispute; and, from the fact that the Committee reported that they saw no reason for proceeding further in those matters, we may suppose that the objections of the Audit Office were endorsed. In the remaining case the Committee reported that, in their opinion, the action of the Controller and -AuditorGeneral was unnecessary. The ground of the fourth dispute was stated by Mr James Allen, who upheld the action of the Audit Office. It appears that certain, services had been rendered by the Government steamer Tutanekai in conveying Volunteers to Sydney for the Commonwealth inaugural celebrations. The Marine Department bore the expense of the services, and the Audit Office held that the amount should have been repaid to the Marine Department by the Department for which the services had been rendered. That view of the case was taken by Mr James Allen and some other members; ' but as there was no specific vote for the services on the Estimates, it was urged that they should have been charged to "Unauthorised Expenditure." The Premier, however, contended that there was such a vote, covered by the words " For services by Government steamers within and without the colony"; and he added that the question of refund to the Marine Department was not one for the Controller and Auditor-General to decide, but that it was a matter for the administration. In that last dictum he was clearly in error. If the Auditor-General deemed that the amount involved had been charged to the wrong Department it was his duty to notify the fact in a memorandum appended to the accounts. . , We are unable . to see where the Public Accounts Committee come in. There is nothing said ; about them in the Public Revenues Act, and their implied censure of the AuditorGeneral strikes, us as ill-advised as they were not his proper judges. The Government of course supported the report of the Public Accounts' Committee, the majority of whose members belong to the Government party. It is unnecessary to pTirsue that phase of the matter further. The subsequent debate was more inierest- , jngj r "as it dealt with the very great change ' made in the position of the Audit Office by the Public Revenues Act of last year/ The nonsense talked by some of the Government supporters was perfectly appalling. For instance, Mr Napier delivered himself as follows:—"He regarded the Public Revenues Act of last session with great satisfaction. Its principle was that the people of the colony, through their representatives, should disburse the public revenues of the colony without the intervention of any officer or bureaucrat. The pretensions of the Auditor-General were inconsistent with a free democracy." lb is hard to understand how a member of Parliament could have shown such lamentable ignorance of the duties of the Au-ditor-General and such misconception ■ of the scope of the-iegislation of last session. The Controller and Auditor-General is the servant not of the Government but of the 1 ' House of Representatives. The House votes the money for the public services i under certain heads, and it is the duty ; of the Auditor-General to see that the .votes are not exceeded, and that the money is not spent otherwise than as Parliament has directed. The Auditor-General is the •watchdog of the House to gtiard the public chest against assaults from all quarters, including the Premier and the Colonial Treasurer. Every effort that has been made by the Auditor-General has been directed towards strengthening the grip of the House over the public expenditure. He has conscientiously exerted himself to compel the Government (that is to say the i Premier and Colonial Treasurer) to obey the directions of Parliament as expressed in the Appropriation Act and other Acts dealing with the revenue. The thanks that he receives from men of Mr Napier's stamp is to be told that he is a "bureaucrat," and that his pretensions are inconsistent with a free democracy. What certain sections of the Act of last session did was to deprive the Audit- of a great part of its vitality and utility, ; and to place the Colonial Treasurer in the position of being able to do pretty much what he pleases with the public funds when Parliament is not in session. , In short, those provisions go a long way towards exalting the will of the Colonial Treasurer above the will of-Parliament as declared by its own Acts. And yet we are told that the change is in the interests of true democracy. We notice that Mr Hall-Jones had his little say in the debate. It appears that he has made the astounding discovery that constitutional government did not exist in New Zealand before the passing of the Public Revenues Act of last session, because before that date the Au-ditor-General was trying to usurp the functions of the representatives of the people. Mr Pirani's answer to Mr Napier may serve admirably as an answer to that great constitutional authority, Mr Hall-Jones :—"The honourable member's remarks on the Public Revenues Act were utter nonsense. He ought to know that it was unconstitutional for the AuditorGeneral to pass a payment which is not authorised by statute." That sticking to the statute is the head and front of the Auditor - General's offending. He has striven hard in the interests of his masters, the representatives of the people, and they have requited him by abandoning an important part of their' power and prestige which the Audit Office protected, and hand-

ing it over to the Premier, thus making their servitude to him yet more complete than it previously was. If the Premier were to speak the truth would he say that the Public Revenues Act of last session had increased the power of the House over the expenditure? Would he not be compelled to confess that the House had become weaker in consequence of that precious piece of legislation, and that his own authority had become proportionately stronger?