“EXTRAORDINARY DISCREPANCIES”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 353, 14 May 1928, Page 13

“EXTRAORDINARY DISCREPANCIES”

APPORTIONING REVENUE TO BUSES EVIDENCE BEFORE TRANSPORT COMMISSION PRACTICALLY all to-day was spent at the Transport Commission in an exhaustive and very involved examination of the method of arriving at omnibus revenue in special relation to allowances from sale of concession cards.

Examination of Mr. W. St. J. Clarke, Tramways accountant, was resumed this morning b>' Mr. E. H. NorthcrofL counsel for Suburbs. The first questions concerned the method of apportioning money received for concession cards as between trams and buses.

Mr. Northcroft said the suggestion was that the buses had not been credited with a fair share of the receipts, which was in continuance of the allegation that the City Council did nothing that would improve the reputation of buses. It was admitted that tickets sold as tram concession tickets were accepted on buses, but tickets sold as bus tickets were not available on trams. Some bus concession tickets showed the routes on which they were available, and the amount was credited according to traffic judged by cash passenger takings. On Richmond Road tram tickets were available on buses. Witness thought Point Chevalier was in the same position. He was unable to give details as to the method by which the buses were credited with funds collected on tram concession tickets. As accountant he said he was satisfied with the basis of apportionment, but this was arrived at some time ago and he had forgotten the details. RENEWAL FUNDS A considerable time was taken up in discussing the charging of renewals and improvements 40 per cent, to capital, and 70 per cent, to revenue. At one time all tliL, work was done from revenue, but a few years ago 30 per cent, was charged to capital, and this had since been increased to 40.

During a discussion between counsel and the commission, the chairman, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., said it was looked upon as a good and prudent thing to charge as much as possible to revenue and get rid of the liability. Otherwise interest had to be paid on capital account liabilities, and this eventually proved the more expensive. Mr. Northcroft was of opinion that, apart from the accountant’s view, the arrangement unduly favoured the city ratepayer at the expense of the suburban user of transport facilities. BACK TO CONCESSIONS The department’s record clerk, Mr. Thomas Whyte, was then called to describe the method of computing omnibus revenue returns. Witness instanced Point Chevalier, where he said the cash takings, the tram and bus combined cards, and 10 per cent, of the cash takings as representing the use made of tram concession cards, were all credited as receipts. The old G.O.C. system had special cards. Mr. Northcroft asked witness if there had been a considerable variation in concession fares. Witness denied any knowledge of the change. Mr. Northcroft: Don’t you know even as a car user. Mr. A. H. Johnstone, counsel for the City: He has a pass. What does it matter to him? Mr. Northcroft: Oh. He is superior to things like this then. Witness said that notwithstanding changes in the concession rates with possible varitions in their use, the percentages had never been altered. It

was not his business to check the figure, though from general observation he thought the percentage was all right. Witness could give no specific reason for his opinion. Mr. Northcroft pointed out that in his opinion, and that of the local bodies, the buses were not being credited with the proper proportion of concession card revenue. Witnss said a check had been taken on 'buses to secure the number of concession cards used just before the commission. Mr. Norther oft commented on the fact that the figures had not been produced before the commission, and they were little further advanced in knowing whether the percentage credited to buses was correct. “ You expected this subject of apportionments to come before the commission? asked Mr. Northcroft. “ We expected all sorts of things,” remarked witness. Witness said he knew nothing of the reason for the return taken just prior to the sitting, and had seen nothing of the result. ITe had not asked about the figure. It was his duty to obey orders in arriving at figures. UNEXPLAINED FIGURES Witness admitted on several occasions that he could not explain the figures presented in a special report showing the revenue for buses. Mr. Northcroft got no more satisfaction when he asked who could explain them, seeing that the accountant could not. and witness was supposed to be the expert called to explain the figures and the method by which they were arrived at. Witness said Richmond Road service had nothing but tram tickets, and in addition to cash tickets the service was credited with 33 1-3 per cent, of the cash takings for concession cards, which was the percentage on the whole system. Witness did not know whether the same basis was used in allocating tram revenue. Mr. Northcroft pointed out that in April, 1927, the percentage of concession card users on this route was 60 per cent, on definite figures kept at that time. What justification was there for now putting it at 33 1-3 per cent, on some unexplained assumption? Witness said ho believed workers’ tickets were allowed in April, 1927. Mr. J. Stanton, city solicitor, said there were no workers’ tickets in April, 1927, so this did not explain the difference. EXTRAORDINARY RESULTS Mr. Northcroft remarked that this serious discrepancy was also obvious in the Buckland Road service. The . difference between the amount now credited to buses and that credited on actual returns kept a year /ago was extraordinary. (Proceeding.)