DEFENCE FINANCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9790, 13 October 1917, Page 3

DEFENCE FINANCE

“NO DISCREPANCY WHATEVER" “I CHALLENGE ANY INQUIRY" SAYS DEFENCE MINISTER. Referring in the House of Representatives yesterday to a recent article in the “Now Zealand Times” on Defence Department finance, the Hon. Sir James Allen (Minister for Defence) denied that there was any discrepancy whatever in iho Defence Department’s estimates. That, ho contended, had been shown by his colleague, tiro Minister for Finance (the Right Hon. Sir J. G. Ward), who had put the plain facts before the House two days before. The “Times’’ Said there was a discrepancy; that the Defence expenditure had been seriously underestimated; that it was underrated by £5,600,000 a year; but ho thought that lion, members were quite satisfied by the statement made by tlio Finance Minister that there was no nnderostimato by the Defence Department. Ho would not have alluded to the matter, but tho article went abroad, and ho thought that people might think it accurate if it was not contradicted. The Defence Estimates for tho year ending March 01st r9lB, wore sent to tho Treasury on May 26th, 1017, the amount being *127,120,000; and in the estimate the department calculated for £50,000 a month extra on account of the per capita charges of the War Office. The department had nothing to guide it in making tho estimate, till, m July, a telegram was received from tho War Office that the charges would bo £3,360,000 in addition to what had been already estimated. A revised estimate to that effect was sent to tlio Treasurv on July 25th, making the total £24,480,000. On August 20th a subsequent telegram came, stating that another £520,000 would bo required, making a total of 25 millions. This last estimate was sent in alter tho Budget had been delivered. Ho wished to show lion, members and the country that the Defence estimate up till March 31st, 1918, was accurate and sufficient; and he made the statement deliberately that tlio expenditure would bo within tho Dctenco estimate, notwithstanding the increase intimated by tho War Office. The actual expenditure for the six months ending September 30th, 1917 was £7,300.000, including amounts impressed, a considerable proportion of which would not have to bo paid away till after September 30th. For the balance of tho year they estimated tho expenditure to bo at the rate of £7,300.000, with tho addition of £27,000 a month for the increased number of troops, a total of £162,000 additional for the six months. The department put that at £200,000 in order to bo safe. Then the Imperial charges, the War Office charges, were estimated for tho twelve months at £780,000 a month, or a total of £9,360,000. That made a total Defence expenditure up till the end of March, 1918, of £24,016.000, against an estimate of £25,000,000; so that they would still be within the estimate. He desired to say that as far as one could judge that was tho actual position. The department’s estimate, as the Finance Minister said, was up till March Slst, and that was all they wore supposed to supply. Ho hoped, therefore, that hon. members would not go away with the impression, and that the country would not have tho impression, that there had been anything wrong with the Defence estimates, that they wore not accurate. He say that the Minister for Defence was responsible for the Defence expenditure, and no one could bo more delighted ii Parliament wore to agree to sot up any commission or committee to inquire into the whole expenditure. Ho liad watched it carefully himself, so far as one man could do. It might he impossible, it was impossible in wartime, to avoid all extravagance, but he would say that in New Zealand it had been watched carefully'. A preaudit of all their accounts had been going on for a very long time past, and the greatest care had been taken. He would be very glad to have a committee sot up. Mr G. W. Forbes: “What did the Audit Department say about the loose inspection of the vouchers?” Sir James Allen said that the preaudit showed that everything was correct. Mr Forbes; ‘‘The Audit Department sain that the checking of the vouchers'"' was very loose. It was in the papers.’ Sir James Allen (w armly): “1 don t care what was in' the papers. I am not responsible for that. I challenge any inquiry.”