The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1941. Public Works

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23401, 7 August 1941, Page 6

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1941. Public Works

The Public Works Statement, submitted to the House of Representatives yesterday, contains several references to the Government’s purpose of reducing public works activity and expenditure. Thus the Minister for Public Works, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, was able to show that expenditure from the general purposes account of the Public Works Fund, reduced last year, is again reduced this year; and he described the Government’s aim as that of confining construction, in general, to “ undertakings which had reached an advanced stage” and to others demanded by “ special considera- “ tions.” He referred' to the progress of works, the completion of which, he claimed, was “ fully justified and, indeed, necessary a distinction which will be remembered. He showed that the public works staff has been considerably reduced, so that, at the end of the year, no more than 14,800 were employed on works controlled by the department—473o fewer than a year before—and that of this total almost 5000 were employed by contractors or by local bodies under subsidy, so that the net public works staff had fallen to 9800. Even of those 2880 were engaged solely on defence works, to the extent of which Mr Armstrong rightly drew attention. “It would be erroneous,” he said, “to assume that the scope of purely public “ works activities is reflected by the actual “ operations of the department.” It is, in fact, sufficient to measure it in the over-all public works estimate, which this year reaches the gross sum of £20,615,000. Last year the corresponding estimate was £20,589,000, and £20,327,500 was spent. These figures, which are strictly comparable, embrace expenditure directly controlled by the Minister for Public Works and expenditure controlled by the Ministers in charge of other departments; but the Defence Department is not among them. The figures include moneys provided from taxation and from earned revenue, from depreciation reserves and similar resources, and from loans. Last year’s loan allocation was about £15,000,000; this year’s is £12,950,000. Those are the facts which it is essential to keep in mind in considering public works expenditure; and they suggest no reason whatever to qualify the conclusion from the total figures. The Government’s effort to reduce public works expenditure has reached a speedy end and a poor result, in which the Minister’s arguments and assurances find their test and are exposed. “ The estimates for the current year,” he said, “have been framed in keeping with the expressed policy of low-level public works “ expenditure during the war.” The statement is astonishing. “It will be appreciated,” he continued, “ that in repeat of new proposals “extensive detailed surveys and investigations “ would be required in many cases before activities could be launched, and this factor is “receiving close attention.” But what would have been genuinely in keeping with a policy of low-level public works expenditure during the war would have been just such a survey, ranging all works in progress and directed by the need to stop, or suspend, or reduce to caretaker provision every work from which capital, labour, resources could be diverted to the war effort. It would be absurd to pretend that this has been done. To do him justice, the Minister does not pretend it. He advances, instead, the Government’s excuses for doing something else. They are poor ones.