-A (2) 11
# WIRELESS LICENCE FEES
51. A surprise survey by this Department revealed that 167 ten-dollar licences for the year 1933 had been issued and paid for on 30th-31st of December, 1932, and dated 1st January 1933 (Sunday). Of the total sum of $1,670 collected, $1,060 was paid into the General Post Office No. 2 bank account, being returned by cheque to the Wireless Licence Office on 3rd January 1933. The balance of $610 was held in cash by the Officer in Charge of the Wireless Licence Office.
The $1,670 should have been paid into the Government Account on the last day of business in 1932.
# DEPARTMENTAL BANK ACCOUNTS
(Para. 41. 1931 Report).
52. The position as regards these bank accounts remains unaltered, and in view of the remarks made in the Report for 1931, it is again necessary to point out that a considerable amount of money was charged in the year's accounts which had not in fact been disbursed; it appears necessary to deal with this subject. The Board of Survey on the Treasury referred to in paragraph 30 of this report, reported that they found a total sum of $84,520.87 in cash, also a sum of $531,499.28 in partly or wholly drawn up cheques representing disbursements in respect of 1932 and not yet completed. These purported disbursements are shown as final expenditure in the Treasury accounts for 1932, and it appears irregular that a financial system should obtain which permits such a state of affairs. In a subsequent paragraph, it will be explained that certain items of expenditure that appear as final entries in the Treasury accounts were in fact subsequently embezzled.
# CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
(Para. 55. 1931 Report).
53. A visible improvement has been made in the control of these contracts, and it is essential that strict control should not be relaxed.
One case occurred, however, on which this Department had to make submissions to the Government. On a contract which should have been completed on the 27th April, 1931, extensions first of six months then of three months were granted. Early in July, 1932, the contractors were warned that up to the 31st May 1932 they had become liable to a fine of $1,260, but on the 3rd December, 1932, the work having been completed on the 28th November, 1932, the fine up to the 31st May was rescinded and a retrospective extension of time granted. A penalty of $1,820 only was enforced instead of a penalty of $5,740.
-A (2) 11
WIRELESS LICENCE FEES.
51. A surprise survey by this Department revealed that 167 ten-dollar licences for the year 1933 had been issued and paid for on 30th-31st of December, 1932, and dated 1st January 1933 (Sunday). Of the total sum of $1,670 collected, $1,060 was paid into the General Post Office No. 2 bank account, being returned by cheque to the Wireless Licence Office on 3rd January 1933. The balance of $610 was held in cash by the Officer in Charge of the Wireless Licence Office.
The $1,670 should have been paid into the Government Account on the last day of business in 1932.
DEPARTMENTAL BANK ACCOUNTS.
(Para. 41. 1931 Report).
52. The position as regards these bank accounts remains unaltered, and in view of the remarks made in the Report for 1931
it is again necessary to point out that a considerable amount of money was charged in the year's accounts which had not in fact been disbursed", it appears necessary to deal with this subject. The Board of Survey on the Treasury referred to in paragraph 30 of this report, reported that they found a total sum of $84,520.87 in cash, also a sum of $531,499.28 in partly or wholly drawn up cheques represent- ing disbursements in respect of 1932 and not yet completed. These purported disbursements are shown as final expenditure in the Treasury accounts for 1932, and it appears irregular that a financial system should obtain which permits such a state of affairs. In a subsequent paragraph it will be explained that certain items of expenditure that appear as final entries in the Treasury accounts were in fact subsequently embezzled.
CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS.
(Para. 55. 1931 Report).
53. A visible improvement has been made in the control of these contracts, and it is essential that strict control should not be relaxed.
One case occurred, however, on which this Department had to make submissions to the Government. On a contract which should have been completed on the 27th April, 1931, extensions first of six months then of three months were granted. Early in July, 1932, the contractors were warned that up to the 31st May 1932 they had become liable to a fine of $1,260, but on the 3rd December, 1932, the work having been completed on the 28th November, 1932, the fine up to the 31st May was rescinded and a retrospective extension of time granted. A penalty of $1,820 only was enforced instead of a penalty of $5,740.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.