GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.

Evening Star, Issue 21316, 21 January 1933, Page 17

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sir, —111 your issue of January 18 you state: “Our depression was not made by the Government.” Whilst admitting that our depression was not made solely by the Government, yet by its extravagant and inefficient policy it has largely contributed to our present depression. The net indebtedness of New Zealand in 1919 stood at £170,125,204, and in 1932 it had reached the colossal sum or £279,507,633. Thus the Government has borrowed £109,382,429 in thirteen years. This works out at £lB3 6s 7d per hea<|, compared with £177 9s 9d m Australia. The net indebtedness per head in 1919 was £144 7a sd. Our present total interest bill is £12,211,693. This means that before we can call a penny our own this colossal sum must be paid annually. On what has this huge sum borOowed since 1919 been spent? If it had > been expended in remunerative investments such borrowing would have justified itself. The New Zealand Railways have been responsible for an incredible amount of wastage and inefficency. The Government has insistently spent huge sums on this institution in direct defiance of expert advice. The Auckland railway station, including the deviation, cost the country £1,960,000. The Kirikopuni loop, which was built against the advice of the chief engineer, Mr Furkertj cost li millions. This line, which is in Mr Coates’s electorate, taps a village of twenty-three people, and involved in its construction two steel bridges and one road bridge. The interest on the money spent on this line costs the country £77,000 a year. The Middleton goods yard, Christchurch, cost £127,000. This yard is now closed. In the Hillside workshops we can see the same policy of waste and extravagance. Huge hideous buildings have been erected and machinery installed which never has been and never will bo used. In the Public Works Department the Government has run consistently to form. Millions have been spent on hydro-electric works far beyond the present requirements of this country, and in most cases the estimates have been exceeded by fully 60 per cent. The New Zealand London Office also comes in for its share of waste. The High Commissioner bought a new office for £157,000 in 1926. Repairs and interest on the new building cost £39,675. Rents received came to £15,348, leaving a loss of £24,327. The New Zealand staff could not enter into possession until 1930, when it was discovered that the new building was unsuitable, so it was decided to remain in the old one, but the recession of the old contract cost the New Zealand Government £14,250. In regard to our higher-paid superannuitants, I should like to point out that Mr M'Villy is retired on a pension of £4O a week. Although there have been wholesale reductions of staff, cuts in wages, and reductions _ in the unemployment relief, this sudden desire for economy does not apply to the higher-paid super-annuitants. The Government was nearly defeated over a case of this sort, causing Mr Wright to remark that the present Government was creating conditions similar to those that existed in France previous to the revolution. The case of Mr Furkert is especially glaring. This gentleman was in receipt of a salary of £1,700 per annum, and was retired on a pension of £1,050. The Government, considering that this sum was insufficient, created a nominal position with a salary of £250 for Mr Furkert’s benefit. The position was that of Mr Furkert being retained in an advisory capacity to the incoming engineer. As the Government’s present policy is that of wholesale reductions of staff and work, it might well be asked: AVbat was the Government’s idea in creating this position when there was less work to do and less staff to supervise? Also, no previous engineer had had an advisor, and if the incoming engineer required one when there was less work to execute and less staff to supervise, then he was incapable of holding the position. So the Government has been consistent throughout the period from 1919 to 1932 in its extravagance and incompetence, and notwithstanding the fact that the country is verging on collapse, the Government can still bo openhanded where its friends are concerned. Even had our peak prices been maintained, the Government, by its wasteful policy, would have headed us towards bankruptcy.—l am, etc., Labourer. January 21.