The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1935. Unemployment Expenditure

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21445, 10 April 1935, Page 10

The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1935. Unemployment Expenditure

In an address to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, reported in " The Press " this morning, Mr Walter Bromley, deputy-chairman of the Unemployment Board, replies to the charge that the board is " hoard- " ing " its funds. It can be said at once that the charge is obviously irresponsible and is based on the fallacious assumption that the monthly cash surplus, as published in the gazette, is a guide to the true position of the Unemployment Fund. The charge that' Mr Bromley ought to reply to is the very reasonable one made at the recent conference of the Municipal Association in Christchurch —that the board's published accounts are so lacking in detail that it is impossible to estimate the local basis of expenditure or to judge whether the money is being wisely spent. Certainly Mr Bromley's analysis of expenditure for the month of February last does not meet this charge. Nor, for that matter, does it add anything of importance to what is already known. It has not even the small merit of being logical. Mr Bromley is very careful to emphasise that expenditure for February cannot be taken as an average; but he proceeds to multiply it by 12 to show that the board's expenditure for the year will be approximately equal to its income. In another place he points out that the board's administrative expenses amount to only 4 per cent, of its total expenditure and compares this favourably with the cost of unemployment administration in Great Britain and Queensland. The position is that practically the whole of the Unemployment Board's administrative work is done for it by government departments and that for this work the board is charged at the uniform rate of 4 per cent, of its expenditure. As the National Expenditure Commission pointed out, this method of accounting is highly unsatisfactory, since it prevents anyone from discovering what it is costing tojidminister unemployment. Mr Bromley complains, as he has complained many times before, that the Unemployment Board is subjected to much uninformed criticism. That is true; but the remedy is in his own hands. Until the board puts the public in possession of the full details of its expenditure, instead of giving selections of facts and bare summaries, it will not command the confidence of the public. It is no use protesting that all expenditure has to be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance and that the Unemployment Fund is audited in the same manner as all government funds. The function of the Auditor-General is merely to ascertain whether money has been expended with proper statutory authority. It is no part of his duty to prevent extravagance.

The Danzig Elections Though the Nazi victory in the elections for the Danzig Senate has aroused an understandable uneasiness in Poland and France, the possibility of a German coup d'etat or of any action by the Danzig Nazis likely to cause a breach between Germany and Poland is extremely remote. Ultimately, no doubt, Germany will insist on a revision of the status of Danzig and of the Polish corridor; but in the meantime the exigencies of the European diplomatic situation make it urgently necessary for her to remain on friendly terms with Poland. When the Nazis came into power, Germany was encircled by hostile nations; and her isolation was completed by the inclusion of Russia in the French system of alliances. In an. attempt to break the ring German diplomacy set itself the task of driving a wedge between France and her hereditary ally, Poland. At first sight the chances of success seemed negligible. Ever since the peace settlement there had been constant bickering between Germany and Poland over Danzig, over the Polish corridor, and over Polish treatment of German minorities; and since 1925 the two countries had been engaged in a bitter trade war. The only factors favourable to the attempt were the increasing hostility between Poland and Russia and France's inability to import as much from Poland as she used to. Early in 1934 trade negotiations were opened between the German and Polish Governments; and in March a trade treaty was concluded in which practically all the retaliatory duties imposed in the previous nine years were removed. For Germany the treaty involved heavy sacrifices; and there is some truth in the French charge that Poland's allegiance was bought by trade concessions. In the meantime, a determined attempt was made to thrust the Danzig issue into the background. Dr. Rauschning, the Nazi president of the Danzig Senate, proclaimed to the astonishment of his followers that the main objective of his policy was peace with Poland; and his successor, Captain Greisser, has made several official visits to Warsaw. Though the result of these efforts was the conclusion of a pact of non-aggression between Germany and Poland, it cannot be said that the political settlement was as effective as the economic. The reason is that the German Government cannot, without loss of prestige, actively discourage the irridentist activities I among Danzig Nazis which formerly it did so much to promote. Herr Hitler himself has promised the Danzigers in most specific terms that he will not rest until he has re-united them with the fatherland. Though Dr. Goebbels was careful to explain during the recent election campaign that reunion was to

be achieved by peaceful methods, it is not easy to see how this is possible. Even if the Nazis had secured the desired two-thirds majority in the Senate, they would not have been able to alter the Danzig constitution without the consent of the League Council; and as long as France remains a member of the council consent will not be given. The truth is, perhaps, that the failure of the Nazis to secure a twothirds majority has saved the German Government from a very awkward dilemma.