PUBLIC BUILDINGS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22268, 22 May 1934, Page 10

PUBLIC BUILDINGS

THE GOVERNMENT CRITICISED EXTRAVAGANT EXPENDITURE ALLEGED Reference to the question of expenditure on public buildings in New Zealand was made at last night's meeting of the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce by Mr E. E. Nicolson, who alleged that in some cases extravagance was in evidence. Mr Nicolson said he had consulted with Mr C. B. Barrowclough on this question, and a statement had been drawn up. The Government, he admitted, was subject to pressure on all sides, and instead of allowing Ministers to become statesmen the people themselves made them politicians. It was right, however, that certain views should be put before them, so that they might understand hew their activities interfered with the general taxpayer. The statement was as follows: — .

" The Associated Chambers, of Commerce have long and resolutely set their face against Government interference in business. By this they do not suggest that circumstances may not arise in which it may be necessary for the Government to" interfere to protect the public, or to prevent exploitation by large foreign trusts, or to conserve some national asset such as shipping, but they do protest against the evergrowing practice of the Government of using funds wrung from 'the taxpayer to enter into competition with that taxpayer and ultimately drive him out of business. Perhaps in no direction is this policy more pronounced, or carried out with more disastrous effects to the community than in the matter of public buildings. " Whilst our system of Government is largely framed on that of Great Britain, our methods are very different. In Britain the Government and local bodies build to house the necessary officials and to meet the reasonable requirements of the departments concerned. There is and can be no objection to pur Government departments building well and with reasonable foresight in regard to future expansion. "But there is, m a country overburdened by debt, grave objection to unwarranted extravagance and to the building for tenants in competition with private enterprise. _ "The amount of money frozen in unnecessarily large buildings for the Public Trust Offices throughout New Zealand must be colossal. The same lavish expenditure has been followed to some extent by electric .power boards, and is now being pursued wholeheartedly by the State Eire Insurance Department. Without taking the land into account it is said that the State Eire Office m Christchurch will cost £60,000. Is this expenditure necessary when one of the largest fire insurance companies in the world can satisfy its local requirements for the modest sum of £20,000 for both land and buildings? "The specious argument is frequently put forward that these departments are using their own funds, but this is .not strictly correct., The funds of these profit-making departments belong to tue people; and, while the country is overburdened by. debts, these surplus funds should be conserved with a view to the reduction of our public debt, and should certainly not be frozen in bricks and mortar, beyond reasonable requirements. "Admittedly it is also contended, and particularly so in the case of the State Eire Office, that the buildings represent investments for the reserve funds which such a concern must build up. .. But surely there are other and more advantageous avenues for investment of .such funds. Investment in Government inscribed stock and local body debentures to finance their legitimate undertakings would surely be preferable and of a more liquid nature. "Distinguished visitors from abroad express themselves : as amazed .at the extraordinary Government expenditure in buildings. The function of the State should be to govern, not to compete _in industry with its subjects. The function of the Government of a country might he likened to that of the counting house of a large business. It is inconceivable that the counting house of such a business would use the finances of its employers in such a way as to undermine the revenue of the business it should serve. 'Yet this is the policy adopted by the State. For the more the Government and local bodies build to cater for tenants the greater is the loss of taxation from taxpayers. . " It should be pointed out that if the profit-making departments of the State be permitted to use their so-called reserves in extravagant building pro : grammes, it means that the taxpayer has to.pay for the non-profit-making departments, and also for the interest on the ever-increasing public debt. "I do not propose at the moment to deal with the wider question of the unwarrantable action of the Government and local bodies of New Zealand in entering into direct competition with taxpayers. But it is desired to deal with the appalling extravagance in the matter of public buildings which, if continued as in the past, would lead to bankruptcy. If the Government's object in building so expensively is a form of advertisement with a view to gaining an. advantage over taxpayers engaged in the same business, one can only describe that object as a gross and grave abuse of public moneys:" Mr Nicolson moved: (1) "That in view of the indebtedness of New Zealand local bodies and. the Government it would appear'that both are to a great extent mistaking their true functions, in that to ah unnecessary extent they are freezing large sums in buildings for some departments quite beyond the needs of those departments, and in doing so are entering into competition with the legitimate enterprise of private individuals and companies, thereby curtailing the taxable capacity of such. In the opinion, of this chamber 'some definite steps should lie taken to keep the building for Government and local body departments on a moderate scale suitable to house the officers of each and not to accommodate tenants, the latter being the distinct function of private enterprise." (2) "That copies of this resolution and accompanying statement be forwarded to the Associated Chambers of the Commerce, Wellington, and to the chambers throughout New Zealand with a view to having the matter thoroughly ventilated at the next annual conference of the Associated Chambers." Mr Barrowclough seconded the motion. He said the object of bringing the matter forward was to deal with the attitude of the Government in deliberately entering into private competition in the matter of providing buildings for letting purposes. No private'enterprise could stand up against a wealthy Government, and no private enterprise could compete successfully with the unlimited wealth of the Government in letting buildings. It was time a most emphatic protest was made against the ever-increasing expenditure in this direction. After a short discussion, the motion was carried.