PUBLIC WORKS POLICY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22231, 4 October 1935, Page 10

PUBLIC WORKS POLICY

An interesting discussion on the guiding motives in making decisions on public works financed by loan money is placed at the head of the Minister's statement presented to Parliament yesterday. Mr. Bitchener asserts that public works policy should aim at increasing the country's prosperity and sees in this principle a requirement that the works should be reproductive. His difficulty is that, if this requirement were strictly applied at present, many works would cease, to the serious prejudice of employment. He recognises that there is another view that would take into account indirect social or financial benefits. Mr. Bitchener rightly considers that this sort of justification, which is too readily offered for many projects not economically defensible, should be viewed with great caution. If, however, the finances of a particular work can be arranged that the capital charges are no greater than it can be expected to meet, the remainder of the expenditure being found elsewhere, then Mr. Bitchener is prepared to approve of it being included on the loan schedule. That is the working partnership into which he has entered with the Unemployment Board. His prudent requirements for safeguarding capital and providing against future charges are met, and at the same time the board's social objective to provide work for the unemployed is realised. The policy makes good sense, but not good logic. The Democrats have been asserting that capital works to relieve unemployment should not be met out of revenue. On the other hand, others contend just as forcefully that the bill for current distresses should be met out of income and not by borrowing. Mr. Bitchener has hit on a compromise in the best British tradition. The taxpayer's interest is conserved while his social conscience is satisfied. Little fault can be found with the immediate programme of works, which will absorb 8000 men into ordinary employment. The longrange policy is apparently- still in the incubation stage. The idea is sound if future governments have the moral courage to apply it as a brake or as circumstances may dictate. Finally Mr. Bitchener's statement should be noted, that the activities of his department have almost reached the scale of those before the depression and are more varied. He uses this remark to advance a plea for increased staff. The public has never been satisfied that the department's establishment was reduced in requisite measure during the year 3 of relative inactivity and will regard this early move for expansion with considerable suspicion. Mr. Bitchener must be prepared to show that it is fully justified.