The National Expenditure.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16849, 1 June 1920, Page 6

The National Expenditure.

In the course of our remarks on Saturday on the very large increase in tho national expenditure, ivc a.Uuded io tlie fact that sir Joseph Ward must he held partly responsible for it. Jn view of the fact—attested by Sir Joseph himsolf—that the Prime Minister loft him a very free hand in the management of the Treasury, ?.nd in view of the fact that Sir Joseph unwisely ncglected the Treasurer's duty of keeping his hand on the expenditure, his friends could not justly complain if he were declared to be niufnly, and very seriously, to blame for the upward tr; nd of the expenditure. We did not impute all this blame to Jiim, because it seemed to us that the Prime Minister also had a duty in the matter. Apparently, however, it is hold in Opposition circles; that it is a serious offence to think Sir Joseph less than perfect. This is a j groat pity, for more than one reason. In ' the first place it leads—or at any rate it led our morning contemporary yesterday—into as fantastic an account of the way in which public money is spent as can be conceived. Everyone knows —or ought to know—that early in the fiscal .year the Departmental heads set about preparing their estimates of expenditure, and these estimates are presented to the Minister of Finance, and later to Cabinet. They may be modified whore modification is desirable and possible. "When they are approved, and the House votes the money, several months of the year have elapsed, and the machine is running on that basis, and must so run until the end of the year. No Minister can suddenly, when tho machine has been running for some months, do anything to alter tho final cost except in a comparatively small degree. Heal savings must be planned at the beginning of the year; for really effective saving, plans must even ba mad© in the year previous. Now our morning contemporary declares —and possibly may even belie vo—that at any moment, by _the wave of hi's hand, or by .1 stroke of his pen, a Minister can save any sum 110 pleases. It paints a strange picture of the expenditure growing at a comparatively moderate pace under. Sir Joseph Ward, and suddenly bounding up the moment Sir Joseph resigned. We are not exaggerating. Our contemporary's own words are these: "Sir Joseph Ward's "monthly average [of increased ex- " penditure] was £130,704. Since he "took his hand from the helm tho "monthly average has been £320,211." As a matter of fact, Sir Joseph never had his hand on the helin. There is no evidence of it. There is evidence, on i the contrary, that Sir James Allen, rej ceiving Sir Joseph's estimates (which j were actually passed and in print, acI cording to Sir Joseph himself) was | staggered by their lavishness,' and did I his beat to cut them down. But he j could use the pruning knife onlv to a limited extent. In his Budget he | said: "When the draft Budget [prepared under Sir Joseph Ward] was "placed in my hands on September Ist " last the estimated expenditure ex"ceeded tho estimated revenue by " £934,003, with the supplementary es- " timates yet to come." Sir "Joseph, who was £hon contemplating his resignation, was hardly taking great pains to make things easy for his successor 1 What the Opposition ask us to' believeis that as Sir Joseph, having given tho helm tho turn indicated in the quotation from tho Budget, took his hat from its peg in his office for the last timo a wave of riotous' extravagance rushed through the Departments. We venture to suggest to the Opposition papers that this will not do, j and that they will be better able to; undertake the unaccustomed task of criticising the public expenditure if they got rid of their delusions coneernJoseph Ward. And this advicc wo also offer to the Liberal members of Parliament if they wish to render effective assistance, as we hope is the case