PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 84, Issue 180, 2 August 1940, Page 7

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

REPORT BY AUDITOR-GENERAL TREATMENT OF EXCHANGE USE OF SURPLUS CKLDIIS-IN-AjD WELLINGTON, Aug. 1. i ■ In the report of the Controller ana Auditor-General each year since i 1932 the attention of Pariiamait hasj been drawn to the unsatisfactory > method which has been followed in, connection with the treatment of ex-j cnange in the Public Accounts, states _ the Controller and Auditor-General.' Mr. C. G. Collins, in his report, tableu j in the House of Representatives bj the Speaker, Mr. Barnard. “The method in question, ’ he states, “was set out in some detail in last year s report, and as due attention has oeen drawn to the matter 1 propuse to comment no further on it meantv hiie.” Dealing wdh authorised expenditure. Mr. Coil ins stales that lor some years the Employment Promotion Fund provided funds with which various departments carried out activities to relieve unemployment. Consequent upon the abolition of the Employment promotion Fund these funds were not available to the departmental votes, and mainly for this reason issues for the service of certain votes were in excess of the amounts available ror such service for the period from the Degmning of the year to the passing of the Imprest Supply Act. I nanUiorise:! Expend.lure Secaon 5b of the Puolic Revenues Act, 1926, made provision whereby a iim*tcd amount ot expenditure might be made in excess of or without me appropriation ot Parliament ana charged to the authorised expenditure account, but this limit was allowed io be exceeded on the Prime Minister giving an undertaking to introduce validating legislation. This was provided in section 9 of the Finance Act. 1939. “Toward the end of the year,” ?.*r.

| Collins adds, “when it appeared that the authorised limit would be exceeded again, the Prime Minister gave j a further undertaking to introduce tne ■ legislation necessary to validate any ', over-issue. The statutory limit of ' £500,000 for services other than rail- | ways nas been exceeded by £278,032 115 s 4d. The necessary validating legislation appears in section 9 of the Finance Act, 1940.’’ * Referring to surplus credits-in-aid, ( Mr. Collins points out that the provision of the Public Revenues Act in relation to them is that moneys may b? expended beyond the amount having . I prior authorisation by Parliament, and J that this is in the nature of an addi- . Ilion to the authorised authority of ’! £600,000 given by section 58 (3), of , I the Act. Big Rise in Recent Tears . ■ “So long as credits-in-aid are not i greatly in excess of the amount esti- ’ mated to be received in respect oi i them,’’ Mr. Collins adds, “no serious .' objection could be taken to their use . in the way set out, but as shown in ;; tne schedule covering the last 10 years ■ the surpluses made use of are of very -1 large amount. The use of credJus-rn-i aid to such amounts shows that the - • expenditure under the votes exceeded ■ ■ the estimate at least to the amount J stated, for it is only when this occurs . 1 that surplus credits-in-aid are drawn ; ' upon. It has to be added, however ■ ■ that these surpluses, unlike authorisL ’ ed, may be applied only to purposes L ' provided for by votes, but provided fox ! insufficiently.’’ : The surpluses made use of in the Jpast 10 years were: Year endec J March 31, 1931, £16,959; 1932, £19,611; ‘ 1933, nil; 1934, £5505; 1935, £33,341: J 1936, £90,959; 1937, £334,648; 193 S ’ £680.742; 1939, £1,602,572; 1940, £2,- , 636,269.