The Dominion TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1910. THE TRUTH ABOUT RETRENCHMENT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 819, 17 May 1910, Page 4

The Dominion TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1910. THE TRUTH ABOUT RETRENCHMENT.

1 The Peijie Minister and his friends have been saying a good deal lately about tho economies practised during the last financial year. We have been told that these economies, which represent the working of the policy of retrenchment, have effected a saving of nearly £100,000 in the annual appropriations. Those critics who objected to the smallness of. the saving, and the rise in the cost of some of the larger Departments, have been fiercely assailed as "carping" critics. We have been going into the details of the finances, and the result is surprising. The Government's "economies" turn out to be practically no saving at all so far as ordinary Departmental expenditure is concerned. The "retrenchment" has not been retrenchment at all in the sense in which it was generally understood. The "saving" has been in a class of special expenditure incurred in 1908-09, and which would not have recurred in 1909-10 under any but the most extraordinary circumstances. The Prime Minister has frequently been asked for the details of the saving ho has made in the various State Departments, but has failed to suplily them. We can only assume that the reason for his reticence was the fact that the "retrenchment" carried out was not retrenchment at all but was merely a saving due to the nonl'ecurrence of a number of special items of expenditure, as stated above. In his speech at Winton, Sir Joseph Ward referred to the matter as follows:— Tho expendituro under tho Annual Appropriations was less than in the, previous year by ,£98,970. This, I may say, was tho first time for a number of years that there has been any decrease at all in the annual expenditure, and this should bo a source of satisfaction to nil well-wishers of tho country. That reduction in annual expenditure, notwithstanding tho fact that we have a record revenue for tho year, has deen drought AUOUT Dl" ECONOMIES CARRIED OUT I.N' various departments, and it is tho strongest answer that can bo given to our opponents upon tho ouestion of retrenchment, to have, notwithstanding a largely increased business, reduced tho expendituro bj JJ9S/J7O in this way, considering that tho' economies practised by the Government commenced to take effect from the'latter portion of the year. Let us proceed to the facts. The expenditure in five of the Departments was greater in 1909-10 than in 1908-09. The aggregate increase in these Departments was £111,253. In the other Departments the expenditure was reduced, the savings being: Legislative, £647; Native Affairs, £11,965; Mines, £6753; Internal Affairs, £88,100;' Defence, £5339; Customs and Marine, £8539; Labour, £6065; Lands, £20,629; Agriculture, and Commerce, £29,770. The net result, as the Prime Minister stated, was a reduction of the total Departmental expenditure by £98,970. So far we are quite in agreement with Sir Joseph Ward. But he went further, and claimed that this reduction was the result of economies practised by the Government. This statement is not supported by the facts. The saving made, small as it was, was not due to "economies" at all, as we shall show. In the Legislative Department, for instance, the bulk of the saving came through the non-recur-rence of a compassionate allowance of £100, of bonuses and payments in respect of the Parliament Buildings fire amounting to £225, and of the cost (£SO) of a shield for the House. So, in the case of some of the other smaller Departmental savings, there is little or no saving duo to real economy. But we need only consider some of the larger "savings" to see tho Government's claims melting into thin air. The Prime Minister apparently wishes the public to think, for example, that it was economy and prudence that led to the expenditure in tho Lands Department falling by £26,629. He omitted to tell the public that this saving is due to the fact that the special grant of £29,782 for grass seed in 1908-09 to settlers did not recur, nor the expenditure of £2565 for surveys under the Maori Land Act, nor the subsidy of £2766 for tho Manawatu protection works. These special non-recurring items amount to £35,113. It was their nonrecurrence, therefore, and not any Ministerial prudence, that reduced the Departmental total. As a matter of fact, the Government was in I a position to increase the normal expendituro by several thousands of pounds and yet to show an apparent saving. With respect ' to the Agricultural Department,' we are asked to believe that it was economy that brought about a saving largely made up of the non-recurrence of such items as the payment of £3036 in connection with the Franco-Bri-tish Exhibition, of £623 in connection with the Christchurch Exhibition, and a host of smaller items of a special character that could not recur. The bulk of tho saving in the Native Department is due to economy almost as little as to Halley's comet. Half of that saving arises from the non-recurrence of the cost of the Native Lands Commission (£5138). Tho Government, through no merit of its own, was not called on to pay another retiring allowance of £400 to Colonel Porter nor to spend £1440 in purchasing land for Natives who were the victims of a, fraudulent sale. It is in the Department of Internal Affairs, however, that the disingenuousness of tho Prime Minister's claim that he effected economies shows up in the most glaring colour. "Eighty-eight thousand one hundred pounds,_ gentlemen !"—so we may picture him saying—"AVhat do you think of that for a saving? Is that not a proof of high wisdom and shrewd economy V It is only when the details are examined that wo find that tho saving is made up by the recurrence of these, atnonj^

other items: General election and licensing poll £59,259, busts of Maoris in the Museum £573, printing of consolidated statutes £3500, subsidy; to Alexandra Home £23-17, Dominion medals £1280, American fleet £9260, Canada tercentenary £1000. In respect of some of these items there were small "washingup" votes for the past year, totalling ahoufc £5000. These non-recur-ring items thus account for about £70,000 of the saving of £88,100. We have purposely omitted a large number of small non-recurring items because each year a certain number of such items occur, and they may he allowed to balance one another. The larger amounts, however, our readers can see for themselves are not likely to be replaced by others of equal amount, and, as a matter of fact, they were not. Wo do not know, of course, whether it will be claimed that it was the Government's policy of retrenchment and economy that prevented the holding of another general election, the holding of another Canadian tercentenary, the reconsolidation of the statutes, or another visit from the American fleet. The saving of nonrecurring items of expenditure we have noted, which are not an exhaustive list, in no way due to the Government's alleged "economies," total £115,000. So far, then, from having saved £100,000 through economy, the Government- increased the normal expenditure of the Departments. The country has some reason to be thankful, inasmuch as there has been a break this year in the annual increase of Departmental expenditure. But it is just as well that the public should know how this has come about, and how little "retrenchment" has really taken place.