ADJUSTING EXPENDITURE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 149, 22 December 1930, Page 8

ADJUSTING EXPENDITURE

The statement in which the ActingPrime Minister announced the Government's economy decisions is to be commended as a calm and reasonable explanation of the position— free from the disposition to panic which seems to have seized some of the outside advocates of economy, and free also from the blind optimism which would trust to time to set everything right. Everything is not right at present, but the way to effect improvements is not so clear as some irresponsible critics suggest. The scale of Government expenditure has been allowed to rise in times of comparative prosperity. For that rise the public must accept their share of responsibility. They have sought new services and new grants. Now the growth of years cannot be cut away suddenly without inflicting undue hardship upon those who may be picked out as the victims for the new-found zeal for economy. Wholesale dismissals are not the cure for the present difficulty. They would swell the volume of unemployment and aggravate the trouble which the Government is even now unable to meet effectively. Even early retirement of Public servants on superannuation has its disadvantages, as it will place a severe strain on the superannuation funds. Admittedly'the problem is one which will tax the ability of any Government, if the solution is to be in any way real and permanent. There are two methods by which relief may be secured. One is the surrender by the public of those services and grants which are justifiable when times are prosperous, but can be dispensed with when there is need for saving. With a few hundred pounds here and a few more there Governments have patronised and supported various worthy movements. The time has come when this patronage must be reviewed. The test must be applied: Is this movement of such public benefit that its claim for support from taxation is clear? There are many services assisted by the Government which are Avorthy, but not so worthy as to be entitled to taxation aid in times of stress. If their claims are strong the public may be relied upon to support them by voluntary contribution. The same test must be applied to services which are convenient but not indispensable. We have formed a habit of expecting the Government to do things which we could quite well do for ourselves. Economy cannot be secured unless there is some curtailment of public benefit by the reduction of public services. With a reduction of services and grants some saving may be effected, but it will not be sufficient to meet requirements unless there is also a reduction in staffing. This fact must be faced. At the same time, we do not wish to aggravate unemployment by wholesale'dismissals. Is there any other way open? We think there is—and this is the second method of practising economy—if the emergency is met in a reasonable spirit. The example of some private businesses may be followed. In these employers and employed have agreed to share the burden by accepting a system of rationing. In some instances it has taken the form of a voluntary acceptance of reduced pay so that all employees may be retained. In other cases a reduction in the wages bill has been effected by employees taking leave without pay in rotation. Without legislation a percentage reduction of pay cannot be generally enforced; but the rationing of work can be brought into operation. We are not in agreement with those who, at the first sign of difficulty, would make the Public servant, the scapegoat. The Government service, taken as a whole, does not receive over-generous treatment, and this applies more particularly to the heads of Departments, who, with few exceptions, are underpaid as compared with men undertaking similar work outside. Moreover, the Public Service, who) limes arc prosperous, does not share in the special dividends of prosperity. But it cannot

be denied that expenditure must be adjusted now to a lessened income and Government expenditure cannot be treated differently. The question is: Shall all make a small contribution to help, or shall the loss and hardship be suffered by a few? The majority of Public servants, we are convinced, would prefer the former method. The main responsibility for giving effect to the Government's economy policy will rest upon the special Economy Committee. Similarly, the responsibility for meeting the demands of the dairy industry has been placed upon a committee. Is it likely that a special session of Parliament would help either committee? We do not think it would. On the contrary, with the present stale of politics, a session would be merely embarrassing. It would probably produce two non-confidence motions, two or three weeks of talk, and nothing really helpful. It is a reflection on democracy and popular government to make this admission, but popular government has not in recent times won popular esteem. If there were a prospect of the leaders of parties really coming together in a spirit of mutual helpfulness a special session would be worth the expense; but we cannot see, as things are, that there would be any advantage in calling Parliament together. Indeed, there might be grave disadvantage by the aggravation of party conflict —with the parties seeking to make political capital out of the difficulties of the country. Until a better accord has been prepared by private discussion under pressure of public opinion, there can be no gain from a meeting of Parliament.