MR J. ALLEN AT WAITAHUNA

Otago Witness, 1 June 1910, Page 13

MR J. ALLEN AT WAITAHUNA

RETRENCHMENT AND WASTEFUL

EXPENDITURE.

At Waitahuna on the 25th May Mr J. Allen, M.P. for Bruce, addressed a meeting of about 80 electors in the Waitahuna Hall. Mr Livingston was in the ohair.

Mr Allen dealt specially with the questions of retrenchment and wasteful expenditure. With regard to retrenchment he showed how all the big surpluses had been used up by the extravagance that had been taking place. There was ample proof of that in the fact that during- Sir Joseph Ward's four years of office the increased expenditure had been £215,000 over the increased revenue, and that new departments had been created during the last 10 or 15 years, raising their number to 30, where there had been previously only 19. The new departments included the Tourist Department and the Public Health Department, both of which had undoubtedly been extravagant, and the Roads Department in the Pu'blio Works Department. But the final and ultimate proof of the extravagance was the admission of the Prime Minister that he could reduce the expenditure by £250,000 without impairing the efficiency. The question was whether this promise had been fulfilled, and he (Mr Allen) doubted it very much. The accounts did not show it, and the facts, as far as one knew, did not show it. Undoubtedly there had' been transfers from one department to another, and there had been superannuations. Take, for instance, the transfer of Dr Mason to London at a salary of £9OO a year, the Prime Minister having claimed a reduction in the Health Department because Dr Valintine was taken on at -£550. All the facts went to show that there wa«~over-staffinig of departments. Anyone who had eyes could see it for himself now in the Tourist Office, both in the Dominion and in Australia. Sir Joseph Ward in his Budget said—-and he repeated it the other day on the West Coast—"lt is impossible in any country where you have a Largely-expanding revenue from year to year to carry on the work of departments 'without a. considerable increase from time to time in staffs, and when, as I say, as a result of a heavy fall in the revenue, the converse must of necessity arise." These words had really no meaning in them as applied to the position, and that coidd be easily proved. Take, for instance, the case of the Land and Income Tax Department. The Prime Minister could not say there was any decrease in revenue, and yet the proposed reductions in the department last year, as shown on the Estimates, numbered 41. How did that agree with Sir Joseph Ward's principle? It did not agree, and could not agree, and it was ample proof of overstaffing. Take the Department of Agriculture. It could not be argued that that was a directly revenue-producing department, and yet it was oropesed to reduce the staff by 72. What explanation was there of such a reduction except overstaffing in previous years? Nor did the accounts pf the year show anything approximating to the proposed' reductions. The total decreases, taking them altogether, were only £211,222, whsras the increases were £112,252, making a net decrease of £98,970. It only needed s.n analysis of these various reductions to show how fallacious the whole thing was. He took two departments to show the fallacy of the so-called retrenchment. The Department of Internal Affairs showed a decreased expenditure this year of £88,099. He could make the whole of it up in five items, which were non-recurring, and which were not retrenchment items: —£60,000 for the general election; £14,000 for stationery, , paper, and stores; £3500 for orinting the Consolidated Statutes; £9260 for the visit off the American .fleet, and £I2BO for ' medals for school children ; —total, £88,040. To claim these as [retrenchments was sheer nonsense. They did not have a geni era! election every year; they did not ' ppint bor.&olidated statutes every year; | nor did they have an annual visit of the 1 American fleet or provide medals for school children every eyar. These were extraordinary items, and the mere fact that they were not spending them this year was not proof of retrenchment. Take, again, the Land jnd Survey Department. The lessened expenditure in the year as compared with the previous year was £27,629, which could be more than accounted for by one item alone, which was a nonrecurring item. —namely, grass seed' for Crown l?,nds and settlers expended in the previous year, £29,782. To claim that as retrenchment was also absurd. He admitted that officers had been dismissed, and at the same time it must be remembered 1 that by Sir Josoph Ward's own admission officers must have been taken on to the various staus in excess of requirements, perhaps for political purposes, and the great iniquity of the whole thing was that these men, who had been led to think they had got employment with the Crown. were now cast adrift to do the best they could. It was a great hardship to these people to have been so misled. He had promised to say something about wasteful expenditure, and he could give sufficient actual proof of much actual wasteful expenditure. Under the Public Works Fund the expenditure upon railways, as he would show at Lawrence on Monday night, had, to his mind, been very extravagant. He had only to point to the expenditure on the Hue between Lawrence and the Big Hill. If all our railways were constructed under similar conditions, his hearers would understand even better than he did how wasteful the expenditure was. and how, owing to this extra charge for the constructic/n of railways, impositions wore being placed on the people, in order to find interest on the extra cost of contraction, which were unfair. But he wanted to speak more particularly of the Consolidated Fund and the wasteful expenditure there. It would probably bo recollected that proposals were made, after the burning of Parliament House, to abandon that site, to take tho Governor's residence site and erect new buildings at very great cost, and to build a new' residence for the Governor on a fresh site to be obtained. This scheme had, so far, not been carried out, except the building of the Governor's new residence. But there had been, to his mind, a great waste of expenditure on the old Parliamentary Buildings, the wooden residence lately occupied by his Excellency the Governor, and the temporary residence for hii." Excellency, to the

•loosfe of over £22,000. . Since the year 189+ the High • Commissioner's office: had increased in annual expenditure by close on. £SOOO. In addition to that, there was a i vote of £4OO on the Estimates last year ! for the financial adviser in London, which was struck off by Parliament because it was thought it was unnecessary money to spend. Then* Parliament was kept together over Christmas, and some members were summoned back in order to suit the whim of the Prime Minister and reinstate the vote. They would recollect, too, what had been said and written about "E. A. Smith and 0b.," who had offices attached to the High Commissioners! office; whose rent was partly paid out of the High Commissioner's office ; who was the son of Sir Walter Kennaway. the head of the High Commissioner's office: and who had been receiving—they did not know how much in the way of emoluments for shipping charges to emigrants and others to New Zealand. It would be remembered that Sir Joseph Ward said he knew nothing about this 'E. A. Smith" business, but a letter from Mr Reeves disclosed the fact that it was his custom to send Mr Kennaway, who was "E. A. Smith," to meet the Prime Minister on his arrival in London. He had referred to the unnecessary expenditure in the salary of Dr Mason, and he had to inform the meeting that others had been sent fi-om New Zealand to occupy positions in the High Commissioner's office at higher salaries than had been received by those who had vacated the positions. He could not commend the expenditure on the Trade Commissioner to the extent of £450 a year. This gentleman was now exploiting- the Cook Islands to see if any extra trade coidd be done for New Zealand. It was a wasteful piece of expenditure. Nor could he the amount expended on commissions. He would give a few stances. The Statutes Compilation Commission cost £5626, and the Native Land Commission* £9842. of which a member of the Ministry received £1945. He was not ,an expert on the Native land' question, but Mr Massey and Mr Herries were experts, and both gentlemen said the money spent on this commission had beerr wasted, and that but little good would come to the Dominion out of this enormous expenditure. Then there was a sum of £3OOO on the Estimates for the Timber Commission. All he could say on that matter was that it appeared to him the result was valueless, but it was a convenient means to the Government in getting rid of a difficulty and finding occupation for some of their supporters. ! In reply to Mr Ferris, Mr Allen eaid: I cannot tell yoxi whether the Labour party will vote for us at the next general election, but I do tell you you are correct in assuming _ that we are the true Liberal party, and if the Labour party wants to vote for true Liberals I have no doubt they will vote for us. On the motion of Mr Ferris, seconded by Mr Larsen, a vote of thanks was accorded to Mr Allen for his address.