PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 24, 29 January 1924, Page 2

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

NEED FOR ECONOMY

(Contributed.) s The banking return? published the other day make it plain .that there still is urgent need in this country for the practice of both State and private economy. The high prices being realised for our chief primary products' again are creating a sense of over-flowing prosperity, and there are disquieting indications of a reviving tendency towards excessive expenditure,--not only in the growth of advances by the banks and in the large increase in the volume and value of imports, but also in a certain slackening In the Government's'2eal'for economy and in the public's assumption that no further' effort in this direction is necessary. How erroneous this assumption is may be judged from the accounts' of almost' any of the 'State Departments, even after Mr. Massey and his colleagues have applied themselves in all earnestness and good faitli to the reasonable reduction of administrative expenditure. * As a case in point, involving comparatively only a trifling sum of money, it would be interesting to inquire into the cost of Bellamy's, the portion of the equipment of Parliament House which ministers to the bodily needs of members and their families, their cousins, and their aunts, to such of their constituents, friends, and acquaintances as anav visit Wellington during the session, and to the friends and acquaintances of all others. This is a delicate subject, touching as it does the cardinal virtues of hospitality and good fellowship, but any reference to it here will convey no personal suggestion nor imply any individual reproach. Bellamy^ is a time-hon-oured institution that has come down to the Dominions from the Mother of Parliaments and through all the intervening years has contributed something to the understanding and .wisdom, as well as to the harmony and comfort, of politicians. By way of showing that there is precedent for such an inquiry, need for it, a few brief extracts from the; evidence given by the Secretary for the Joint-House Department before the Commission set up by the. Commonwealth Government to inquire into the equipment necessary for. the Parliament House at Canberra may be appropriately quoted.

Mr. Fred U'Ren, the officer in question, stated that all accounts having to do with the refreshment branch of the Legislature passed through his 'hands. "The charge of an ordinary thfee.-course meal," he said, "is 2s per head, and for a meal including poultry, 3s each. For a meal which costs a diner 2s in this building, the cost of the food alone amounts to about another shilling. That added amount has to do with food only, but there are other factors which make the. 2s meal a still greater loss to'us. There must be considered the wages of the permanent staff and the sessional waiters; -but it is in the actual cost of food alone that our 2s meal' works out. at ajbout 3s. The more we have to cater for the greater is our loss. To make the department pay would really mean that, allowing for all expenditure, we would have to charge more like 10s than 2s each. Ido not suggest, o! course, that the charge should be made nearer 10s than 2s; but to make some greatly increased charge would be the t)hly way of turning the refreshment department into a paying" opncern. \Ve do not make a loss on the bar in this building; but the profit is merely nominal. -■,-. There is no waste.—We charge the usual retail prices. lam' given '"to understand that the State House provides members with a good meal for Is 6d. If such is the case I feel confident that the department concerned must be :making:■# much greater loss than we are.'1 Much evidence of a similar character was given before the Commission, but of all the witnesses the Secretary of the Joint-House Department seemed to speak-with the fullest understanding of ithe facts. .' . . . / There is no reason to suppose that the -meals'supplied in the "refreshment branch" of the Commonwealth Legislature are in any way. more costly than those supplied in the corresponding branch of the New Zealand Legislature. On the contrary, visitors who have lunched and dined at both places declare that the attendance, the service, the accommodation, and the food, are better in Wellington than they are in Melbourne. Wages are no higher in Australia than they-are^ere, and the cost of supplies no greater. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the meals served in the "refreshnfent branch" of the New Zealand Legislature at Is 6d —not at 23 and 3s, as in Melbouine^cost at least as much as do those served in ; the Commonwealth Legislature. Mr. U'Ren,- the Commonwealth officer in charge of the' accounts, stated that the ■meals in Australia cost nearer 10s than 2s. Thiß fairly might be taken to imply that they cost fully 10e; but we will take the officer's words literally, and- assume that they cost 7s. ( ' • This would mean that each luncheon and each dinner served in Bellamy's at Is 6d cost the State (the taxpayer) 5s 6d over and above the amount paid by the guest, whether he be a member of Parliament or some privileged person from outside. Visitors are not allowed to take meals in the members' diningroom, but they are provided with other suitable accommodation, and they have the run of the whole menu for eigbteenpence. Members of the Press Galjerv, Hansard reporters, certain "Civil servants,' members' wives anc} families, constituents, friends, and acquaintances, all are included in this spacious hospitality. Many members of Parliament from outside Wellington' take a raom for their sleeping hours.-end lodge and board for the rest of the day, Sundays included, within the precincts of the House. Taking breakfast, luncligpn and dinnar, only, into account; it probably would be well within the mark to say that 28,000 meals, each costing the guest Is 6d and the State 5s 6d, are served in Bellamy's during the course oi a session of 140 days. This would represent an expenditure of £2100 by the guests and £7700 by the State.

There is no suggestion that there js any waste or mismanagement in connection wjth Bellamy's. 'For years it. has been directed by most competent and punctilious officers. But' it is obvious that there is need for an investigation into the cost of this "branch" of the Legislature. Tha Audit Department, of course, sees that the expenditure is in accordance with the will of Parliament and the law provided, but apparently it has no authority to protect" the taxpayer from being burdened witii three-fourth^ of the cost of entertaining members and their friends. 4&d now there are whispers of apartments being provided for members in the. vicinity -of the House. It is said that room cannot be found for the building of an adequate Dominion Museum in the neigh-' bourhood, because a sclteme for furniEhing^ members with lodging, as well >as board is under consideration. Surely it is time these little items of public expenditure were being investigated." Bellamy's is not the only-one of them that needs attention. . .-