MAJORITY REPORT. 
« 3 
operation. Mr. Middleton, the Acting Chief Auditor, drew our 
attention to the terms of that Committee's conclusions, and we 
think it desirable to quote the relevant passage as it states 
concisely. the reasons which is 1912 were regarded as justifying, 
and indeed necessitating, the establishment of a separate depart- 
ment manned by full-time officers :— 
“We find ourselves, however, strongly in favour of the 
employment of a whole-time staff for, at any rate, the great 
bulk of the work. The volume of work will be very great, 
and of a character at once uniform and highly specialised. 
It must be borne in mind also that at the inception of a new 
scheme of so far-reaching a nature many novel and com- 
plicated problems will arise, in dealing with which it is 
essential to avoid divergenecy of practice. The audit staff 
will have to be familiar with the uniform system of accounts 
which the Commissioners will have to prescribe, and must 
be made available for the purpose of giving advice and 
assistance generally to the various Societies in accounting 
matters where they so desire. We are convinced, there- 
fore, that the appointment of a whole-time staff would not 
only be the most efficient but also the most economical 
method of meeting the immediate requirements of the 
situation.’” {See @Q. 23,217.) 
674. In essence we are satisfied that these considerations are 
for the most part as valid to-day as ever, and there is the further 
point, not to be overlooked, that an immeasurably stronger case 
would be required to abolish, in favour of professional audit, a 
system which has operated with success for 13 years than would 
have been necessary to justify the adoption of professional audit 
at a time when the field was clear. It is still true and always 
will be true, so far as can be foreseen, that the volume of work 
is ‘‘ very great and of a character at once uniform and highly 
specialised,’ and where these conditions are satisfied there will, 
to our minds, be a primd facie presumption in favour of the work 
being done by specialists such as are created by a full-time 
service rather than by professional auditors in private practice, 
whose wider experience of affairs at large would be a doubtful 
compensation for that familiarity with the work which total 
immersion in the complexities of the Insurance Act can alone 
bring. 
675. Having said so much, it is perhaps unnecessary to con- 
sider in detail how much weight should properly be attached to 
the various considerations advanced in condemnation of the 
present system. But to some of these we may advert, as they 
appear in part to rest on a misapprehension. The delay in com- 
bleting the audit of accounts which was placed in the forefront 
of the indictment is, we are satisfied, more apparent than real, 
and so far as it exists is due largely to the peculiar nature of the