WORKS FOR PROSPERITY ?

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 68, 17 September 1936, Page 8

WORKS FOR PROSPERITY ?

One of the promises of the Labour Party for years before it attained office was that idle labour would be put on to productive work. Many attempts were made to obtain something more specific, some particulars of the programme of works, how far they would be productive, and what guarantee would be forthcoming that they would meet their own costs. No details were offered by the Opposition, and the details available now,do not inspire confidence that the productive quality of the works undertaken will be such that the programme will not add steadily to the Dominion's load of overhead cosls. The Public Works Statement for this reason is disappointing. We admit freely that it is a record of achievement by an energetic Minister working along certain lines—organising the forces _at hjs command, equipping them with up-to-date machinery, preparing plans for works, and building up a capable and efficient organisation to carry them out. The call for action and the record of progress recall the ordered activity of Mr.. Coates when, as Minister of Public Works, he set out to work to a time-table, and, as part of his plan, improved the conditions of Public Works employment so that he might have a strong and efficient force. This is undoubtedly the way to have work done, and it was only the depression emergency that caused a change to be made from good pay and mechanised efficiency to relief work and pick and shovel. Public works had to employ as many men as possible on a rationed relief basis at the lowest cost; and works had to be undertaken that would fit this new requirement. When, the Coalition Government went out of office the time had come for reversion to efficiency methods, in place of the work-making emergency plans. The Labour Minister of Public Works has made the change, and has made it thoroughly. But in considering this achievement we must consider also the cost and the probable return. The cost is set down in the Public Works Statement as £8,543,700. The Financial Statement showed a programme to cost £10,450,000, of which £5,940,000 would be provided out of borrowed moneys. This substantial provision makes it more than ever important that the productive quality of the works undertaken should be proved beyond question. The issue was raised in the Budget by the classification of works as: (1) giving a full and immediate return; (2) offering an immediate and probably full return, but not necessarily to Government accounts; (3) offering a conditional full return ultimately; (4) unlikely to yield a full return within a reasonable period. The Public Works Statement does not apply this classification to the actual works proposed; and we have no means of ascertaining how much of the expenditure from borrowed money will either immediately or ultimately cover its own costs. The works are not of a novel kind. They are the same kind of projects that were considered, and sometimes rejected, by former Governments. The public may reasonably doubt whether their prosecution now, even with mechanical aids and low interest rates, will offer a much greater return. And if the return is insufficient, if the productive factor is not fully realised, the employment of 20,000 men will not assure prosperity. Public works which are only partly productive cannot go on for ever. And when expenditure has to taper off, what is to follow?