PIAKO COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 2895, 3 February 1891, Page 2

PIAKO COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT.

Tiik followintr opinion lins been submitted to the Piako County Council, by Mr Hay, in reference to the dispute over the audit fees charged by the department :— Hamilton. Jan. l»th., l«i>l. W. V. CiiKi'MKr.r,, Jvsij., Chairman Piako County Council, Moninsville.

Dear Sir, —I inn of opinion that the cost of audition the accounts of your Council was and still remains a charge on the Cousolidiited Pund. Previous to ISSIi, the account* of Road Board -land Couutv Councils were audited by tha Auditor-Gouural, and the cost ohtirjred to tile Consolidate! Fund, under Section 100, " Road Hoards Act, ISSL'," and Sectiou I'M "Counties Act, IS7G. "The I'ublic Revenues 'Vet," passed Aug. U, ISBG, abolished this privilege, and provides that "in all cases in which the account.-, of any local body are audited by the Audit Office, the cost and expenses of such audit shall be paid by the Local Body," This repeals the above quoted sections of the Road Boards Act and Comities Act, and Road Boards must now bear the cost of audit. But the "Counties Act, ISSli,'' which came into fores one day later than the " Public Revenues Act, 1S8I>," viz., on the 18th day of August, 18SG, re-enacts word for word Section 12l! of the Counties Act, 1870, and so restores the old order of things so far as Counties are concerned, If we read Section 17-') with Section 18!) of the Counties Act, ISSIi, it will appear clear that the Legislature intended that the ordinary audit of the Council's accounts should be paid for out of the? Consolidated Pund, and that if the ratepayer required a special audit it must be paid for out of tha rates. Under no other construction can a meaning lie given lo both sections. There is a decided conflict between the " Counties Act, ISSti," and the former, being the latest enactment by one day, must prevail against the latter. Especial attention must bo given to the words "as if originally euacted " employed in the tirst part of Sectiou 3, of the " Public Revenues Act, .1890." If tha words " Under the provisions of any Act in that behalf, or by order or by appointment by the Governor or by the Governor in Council under any statute or otherwise howsoever,''had been originally unacted in the " Public Revenues Act, ISSIi," they would have been subject to 'he implied repeal effected by Section 17-">, of the "Counties Act, 1881!." As lo the second pai t of Section:!—! am of opinion that it docs not apply, as your audits do not pro port-to bo and Were not made under the " Public Revenues Act," but under the " Counties Act, ISSIi." Jtmay have been the inton tion of the Auditor-General to have county accounts brought within the scope of the "Public Revenues Acts," but it certainly does not appear to have been carried into effect by tile Legislature.—Yours faith fully,

W. Macukkcor Hay