Would Stagger A Croesus

NZ Truth, Issue 1127, 7 July 1927, Page 6

Would Stagger A Croesus

Government Deparfamfents and Their Cost To The Public

J With financiers and politicians alike calling to all and sundry to keep down expenditure and exercise strict economy, it is illummiriating to examine the huge expenditure of the various State departments.

TI7E are a very much over-governed' VY Dominion, and annually we spend many thousands of pounds which, for all the benefit which results, might just as well have been hurled into the sea. During the last elections the Reform party very effectively used its catchcry. of less government m business and more business m Government. So far neither ideal has been attained; it may even be doubted whether a genuine attempt has been made to fulfil 'this election promise. The flr&i step m any Government scheme of economy mustbe the cutting down of the varfims departments. They are top heavy, , and fully live up m most cases to the comic traditions relative to the. civil service and its members. , Take, for instance, the Agricultural department, which during the last thirty years has* grown to almost Brobdingnaglan proportions. It has 514 officers m addition to a direotor and assistant director, the salary bill totalling £188,123 per annum. Then DirectorGeneral Reakes gets £1250 and Assistant- Director F. S. Pope £800. And Parliament voted for the year 1926-27 a modest £354,722 for this department. Admittedly it- requires a capable department m a primary producing country such as New Zealand,; but . the vital test is one of return. Is the country getting the return from this department which the ,high expenditure warrants? Oh top of .the Agricultural department is the t department of Industrial and Scientific Research, and apparently | this recently-created department is to handle' at least a certain proportion of work which its elder departmental brother is unable to cope with. Why, with its enormous 1 expenditure, the Agricultural department, cannot handle agricultural research must remain 1 , unknown, but apparently it cannot: ' Neither apparently is it pos - sible for,, the Government to effect some economy m the expenses of this department through the creation of the Research ' department. So now the country has to bear the burden of the two departments. ' ', Why The Difference? Blit what -Is istlll more remarkable about this department is , the expense involved, ,and a comparison of the salaries paid to the variqus secretaries reveals a remarkable i state of affairs. Dr. Marsden was 'Assistant-Director o/ Education from January, 1923, to September of last year, at a salary of £1000. „He. He did not become, as many anticipated, the new Director of Education, but Instead was appointed 'Permanent Secretary of the Scientific^ and Industrial Research Board. His salary is £1200 pcr 'annum. ' The Under-Secretary of Internal j Affairs (J. Hislop), according to. , the last . classification, . received only £950, and this after 41 years' service. The Undersecretary for i Mines (A. H. Kimball) is receiving . £925 after nearly 31 years' ser« Vice, and the Secretary of Marine (G. C. Godfrey) pulls down £925 per annum after just over 29 years' service. Why - this remarkable difference ? Admittedly Dr. Marsd&ti's new* department: took over the Dominion Laboratory and Government Astronomer's

branch from the Internal Affairs department, the Geological Survey from the Mines, and the Meteorological Office from the Marine department, but that surely should not account for the discrepancy between Dr. Marsden's salary and that of the Uhder-Socretary of Internal Affairs; ah important and difficult post. Again will there be a ""saving in'the departments named as a result of the new department relieving them of some of their work? v But just consider the Scientific and Research department m , terms ; of £.s. d., and it will be seen that the public will have to foot a bill that would stagger a Croesus. Take eight months' figures; The new' salaries' at head office, £1700; "other" charges; ; including £450 for Meteorological Branch, £4,415 ;> a : total of £6115. Now, the Dominion laboratory £15.431, Geological ' Survey £8101, I Meteorological Office £ 6311, Astrono'--[micaL£2o4o, a total 0f '£537,998; which added to the above makes the already formidable figure of £44,113. What will this be m the coming year I and the next at this unheard of rate of galloping finance? Where is the value for the money and where can we hope to look for anything like that m potential discovery, . or even increased production? Nor is that the only item that' rises like a spectre. Take the Dairy Research Laboratory. A sum of £3000 was voted by the Dairy Control Board, and another £3000 was promfsed by the Scientific and Industrial Research Council, but where does the Agricultural department come m? Where does private enterprise and industry count, m the Taranaki and Waikato laboratories? Other Items .According to the last estimates, Dr. Marsden got £150 for travelling expenses and there was another item (for eight months), "advisory council allowance and travelling; expenses, £250." i A few other items from votes for 1926-i!7 that make bright 1 reading): Dominion Laboratory, staff 21, salaries, £7720; "other" charges, £7711: total £16,431. Geological Survey, salaries, £4546; Mother" charges, £3555; total £8010. Meteorological. Office, salaries, £1855; "other" charges, £4456; total £6311. Astronomical salaries (as shown In classification list), £1060; "other" charges, £980; total £2040. We have already looked into the gigantic Agricultural department, ,but there is also the dairy division. This branch alone numbers 128 men on the staff, with salaries involving an annual charge of- £42,458, and the vote for 1926-27 was £61,313 (an increase of £3173 over the previous year). Looking finally at the Forestry department, founded by Act of Parliament m 1919, the iotal salaries of triis octopus of the public purse, as' shown m the last vote, was * £ 39,707 and "other" charges £229,980, a total of £269,687. ' " Adding the figures of the supplementary estimates of last year, . namely, salaries £1885 and "other" charges, £8810 (£10,695) and we have the 'lofty figure for the de- , partment of £270,382. The director holds down £1000 a year and the secretary £650. Well may the taxpayer ask where it is' going to lead.