Parties and Expenditure.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18072, 14 May 1924, Page 8

Parties and Expenditure.

We have dealt in another article with the speech delivered at Waipukurau byMr T. M. Wilford, and although the speech is mainly interesting for its evidence of the political bankruptcy of the Liberal Party, there is one coiat

in it which it will be profitable to consider by itself. "Mr Wilford com- " plained," we read, '/that when the " Liberals left the 'National Govern- " ment in 1919 the expenditure from " the Consolidated. Fund was " £.18,673,599, but three years later it " had jumped to £28,466,838. The " economies the Prime Minister '' claimed to have effected were forced " on him bv the extravagance of the 1 " Government." It is characteristic of Mr Wilford that he should have omitted to inform his audience that for the year 1922-23 the expenditure had fallen to £26,263,760. He concealed also the fact that it was a Liberal Minister of Finance in the National Ministry who prepared the Estimates for 1920, boasting, indeed, after he had left the Ministry, that he had left the Budget and Estimates for that year complete before leaving office. Sir James Allen, on receiving the Estimates, did what he could, with the year half gone, to cut down the expenditure, but even so it amounted to £23,781,524. If, therefore, Mr Wilford had wished to be candid concerning the movement of expenditure in the three years after the Liberals in the National Ministry had ceased to have any responsibility, lie would have said, not that the amount increased from 18J to 28} millions, but from 23} to 26J millions —an increase, not of 10 millions, but of 2j millions; not of over 53 per cent., but of about 10 per cent. Mr Wilford's political case is desperate, but desperation hardly excuses, even in a Liberal politician, such a reckless want of candour as we have here exposed. We ourselves have never neglected any oppqrtunity to assist, so far as a newspaper can, the movement to bring about a reduction of 'expenditure, but two duties have scorned to us to be important to remember: the duty of allotting the responsibility fairly, and the duty of recognising the efforts of the Government to bring down the outgoings and keep them down.. The expenditure to-day is still higher than one likes to see it, ijut when it is remembered that normally the movement is upward, the Government's success in first checking, and then • substantially reducing the outgoings, is very creditable, and the event unprecedented. During the last three years of the Liberal regime the expenditure v rose by j two-ninths, and thiß was the normal rate of increase. If that rate had from 191$ to 1924 the expenditure this year would have been 24$ millions.' The Liberals at least .cannot appropriately complain, therefore. As a matter of fact, and as everyone knows who has paid attention .to the matter, the expenditure under the National Government bounded up from 12' 1-3 millions to 23} millions •'"in five .years. XTndef Sir Joseph Ward's ,'taahagoment prudence was thrown to the "Grinds, and 'the momentum of the advance was such thaff Mr Massey did exceedingly well to get the brake on effectively in two ?years. The most extraordinary thing | about- ' the concern for., economy which, the Liberals now pretend to feel is that the pretence Bhould be made by those who most loudly clamoured' for' increased expenditure. They not only never challenged the Estimates, as these grew, but in every direction', demanded more lavish spending. • And at this very moment, with'the purpose of seeking '/the support, of the public service; they are backing up the demands of the service for enornlously increased .payments from the public purse!,