A.—4

153

Office. In most cases powers are given to the Governor to appoint special Auditors on petition by the ratepayers of the district or any creditor of the local body, but in many cases this provision is accompanied by requiring a deposit to be lodged, and by a possible charge of costs on the petitioners, so that advantage is rarely taken of the special powers thus granted. Whilst in all the Acts provision is made for the appointment of Auditors and for passing and signing the accounts if correct, the Acts are silent as to the case of accounts being incorrect, or particular charges in them being disallowed. No doubt any sums expended by a Corporation in a manner not provided for by law, may be recovered in the ordinary Courts to the use of the Corporation from those who have caused such expenditure; but such procedings must be at the suit of some party whose interests are concerned, as a ratepayer or a creditor, and the rule that what is every one's business is no one's business applies forcibly in such a case, apart from the disinclination all men feel to risk private funds for public purposes, which are equally the interest of their neighbours as themselves. Moreover, were a case brought to trial, the disallowance of charges by Auditors would have no weight in the result, except other than would attach to their evidence given in Court as witnesses and experts. The cause would be determined by the Court on its merits. The position of the Auditor, therefore, is merely that of a person to report and publish any misdealing with the local funds. The only exception to this rule is in Victoria and Queensland, as regards special Auditors, whose decisions are made final, and cannot be reviewed by the Courts of law It may be thought that such special powers are too large to be placed in the hands of ordinary Auditors ; but it will, I think, be admitted that the position of the latter requires to be strengthened and defined. That might be effected by directing the Auditor to institute proceedings for the recovery of moneys illegally spent, or by making his decision primd facie final, leaving it to the parties implicated to obtain, within a given time, a mandamus of the Supreme Court compelling the Auditor to pass the accounts as correct. A third plan might be to make the Auditor's report final, subject to appeal to some central authority, such as the Audit Office. In all cases, but especially in New Zealand, where the local bodies are many hundred in number, and many of them at great distances from the seat of Government, nothing but a local audit would be satisfactory. But it would certainly tend to a stricter dealing with nmnicipal moneys if the local Auditors' reports w Tere made final, except on appeal to the Audit Office, and that the decision of the latter should be given the effect of judgments of the ordinary Courts, an appeal being given to a Judge of the Supreme Court on points of law and on a case stated. "Where subsidies of public money are granted to local bodies the necessity of an independent audit becomes of additional importance. As an example of this, a case was mentioned to me by the Secretary to the Treasury in one of the colonies, of a Road Board which was said to have for years obtained the subsidy from the Government payable in proportion to the rates raised, and to have subsequently repaid the ratepayers their rates, and so secured the subsidy without the required local taxation. It may be objected that any interference by a central authority with the proceedings of local institutions, violates the principle of local self-government, and removes from the people themselves that responsibility for the due care of their own interests which constitutes its chief value. But, on the other hand, it should be remembered that the powers vested in local bodies are not general or arbitrary, but are defined by law, and are granted for specific purposes. So long as the administration of the local authorities within the sphere of the duties imposed on them is left uncontrolled, it can hardly be said to be an interference with local government, if provision is made for restraining them from exceeding those duties. What is obviously required is a simple and effective machinery for compelling a strict compliance with the law, instead of a machinery which, as at present, can only be put in motion by the accident of finding individuals of sufficient public spirit and independent position to become prosecutors for wrongs affecting all. Such a machinery can, so far as I can perceive, most readily be found in the audit of the accounts of local bodies by Auditors wholly independent of the particular 20—A. 4.