State Expenditure

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 171, 15 April 1933, Page 13

State Expenditure

Sir, —I was much interested in the annual report by the Public Service Commissioner, Mr. Verschaffelt, who, after indicating various economies that have been effected during the financial' year, points out that there is a margin at which savings are procured at the expense of efficiency. With this I quite agree, but in my opinion Mr. Verschaffelt is a very long way from this margin yet. To illustrate this’ the following figures are absolutely conclusive: — Salaries.

The number of classified officers is thus still larger than it was in 1928, and the salary bill, notwithstanding' the general cut, is only slightly less. Such a position of affairs at this critical time in the country’s history is indefensible.’ In my opinion the Government should start at the top, and reduce, sayj the £2OOO per year man very considerably. He would still be able to exist, and the Government would make more saving on one of these men than by reducing many men earning £2OO per year by 10 per cent. It would be no hardship for the former man, whereas it is to the latter. , The Prime Minister states that owing to the marked fall in the revenue of the country it will be necessary during the coining financial year to put into operation further measures of economy. This would be heartening news, particularly to those who are endeavouring to struggle along and perform their national duty in spite of the crushing burden of taxation, if Mr. Forbes had not said the same kind of thing before. A year ago he declared that the Public Service was overstaffed, but there was little evidence in the last report of the Public Service Commissioner that this terrific drain upon the diminishing resources of the country has been checked. However, Mr. Forbes continues to be quite definite upon the urgency of the question. “It is essential.” he declares, “that the country remain solvent, and. the only way to do. that, is to reduce the expenditure in keeping with the reduction in revenue.” Unfortunately there is about three years’ leeway to overtake. The drift has been constant, the efforts to deal with it have been spasmodic, and pathetically inadequate. Even now there is no certainty that the measures he talks about will meet the • situation, for, in reply to a question on the subject, he remarked that it was too early yet to give details. The probability is that the Government has not yet got to grips with the problem. If solvency is to be preserved there must be a prompt and drastic overhaul of most of the departments and most of the services. Apart from the numerical strength of staffs there is a question of method. It is obvious that the adaption of modern business organisation in many directions would reduce overhead.—t am, etc., PITCHER. Hamilton, April 11.

Answer to Correspondent J.D.P. : The subject has been discussed at considerable length in our columns. H.E.R.: Your letter is interesting, but does not shed any fresh light on the problem.

Year. Officers ‘ £ 1913 ' 4895 900.612 19TB 5993 1.115,306 1919 6228 1,221.699 1922 6781 1,80-1,488 1925 7385 2,664.119 1928 7427 2,805,777 1930 7788 2.260.267 1931 7827 2,121.214 1932 7513 2,020,085