The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1909. THE NEED FOR REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 470, 31 March 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1909. THE NEED FOR REFORM.

As only a few days will elapse before the Prime Minister delivers the policy speech which he promised as an accompaniment of the financial returns for tho year just ending, it may be worth while spending a few minutes in taking stock of tho position of the movement for administrative reform as reflected in the newspapers. The public has probably not yet recovered from its surprise at the sudden change' of tone in the Ministerialist newspapers immediately after the General Election. Up till the day of the poll these journals bent all their energies to furiously assaulting every suggestion that there was any need whatever for reform in any branch of the Government's administration. So soon, however, as the eloctions were over, and the Government safe in office again,' these newspapers immediately began to talk freely

of the waste and exfcravagauco that had grown up of late years and of the urgent need for the reform which they had so violently subordinated to the interests of the Liberal party so long as that party, which had created the abuses, was in need of votes. Those cynical selfrevelations must have shocked the public a little/but on the whole the new attitude was welcomed- But sudden conversions of this kind are always looked.upon with suspicion by cautious people. Several motives lay behind the change of tone in the Ministerialist press, but the main reason for the change probably was the tardy recognition of the fact that reform had become imperatively necessary. This view is supported by the subsequent attitude of Ministers in the matter of Civil Service retrenchment. 1 The zeal of the Ministerialist newspapers for reform, however, is already on the wane. As a contemporary points out, they arc, for instance, endeavouring to persuade the public that it is not worth while going on with the Addington Inquiry. The desperate argument is being put forward that the country cannot afford "£3O a day" for this investigation. Perhaps the inquiry may not be worth much in itself. But when it is considered that the rail-'

ways lose anything up to £1000 a day '-without ceasing, the stupidity of objecting to the expenditure of £30 a day to discover a remedy of some of the causes of this loss will be manifest. The public is as littlo inclined to forget the need for railway reform as to place any confidence in Mr. Millar in his hampered condition. Mr. Millar unhampered by his colleagues' necessities would probably do good work. But he cannot achieve much when shackled by party considerations. But it is not in the railways alone that reform is urgently necessary, as is made clear by the figures which we gave yesterday to show the growth of Departmental staffing and oxponditurc. In 1593 the staffs of the various Departments and branches of the service comprised 8270 persons, the population of the country being then 044,099. With the expansion of the "spoils to the victors" system, the staff has grown enormously, as the following table will show:

Officials per 10,000 of Population. Officials population. 1893 072,265 8,270 123 1898 743,463 9,292 124 1903 832,505 12,744 153 1908 960,642 17,584 183 It should be noted that these figures do not include any but salaried officials: thoy do not include the thousands of railway employees, or employees of the Public Works Department. They refer only to clerical officers. It was not until 1898, clearly, that the "billets" began to increase at a tremendous rato. In 1908 tho actual number of clerical officials was nearly double what ( it was ten years earlier, and the absolute ratio of officials to population had grown by 50 per cent, in the same short period. There is no reason why the growth of tho salary list should be as rapid as the growth of population—a competent staff can deal with the affairs of 10,000 people as easily as with the affairs of 8000. But lot us concode this point. Let us agree for the moment that the cost of administration should keep pace with the growth of the things administered. It will bo found that if the ratio of officials to population had remained constant since 1898, there should have been 11,912 officials in 1908. Actually there were 17,584. On the samo basis of calculation, tho cost of the salaries of the public Departments should havo been £1,007,755 in 1903. Actually it was £1,551,519. The most notable increases are in the Treasury, the Printing Offico, the Valuation, and the Tourist, Lunacy, Agriculture, Police, and Education Departments. Some of tho increases are justifiable, but most are not. We arc not advocates of any schome of wholesale dismissals from the public service. What we complain of is the excessive growth of the service, duo mainly to political considerations. What is required is reorganisation of the various Departments so that tho overlapping and consequent waste which takes place shall bo stopped. Wo have on a previous occasion drawn attention to the multiplicity of small Departments, and urged that a substantial saving could bo made by merging these into larger Departments.

I In addition to tho expenditure on the Departmental salary-lists of 'this overofficered country, thero must be corresponding increases in the vast wagessheets of the Departments. Wo have no exact figures on this point, but it is obvious that in the lump the persons dependent on tho public purse must make up an enormous army. The public may be left to guess how many of them are drawing the pay of faithful service to tho party. If there were nothing else ahead of thorn, the friends of reform and good government could do the country great good by securing the removal of the public service from' political control. We believe that at the present timo the force of public opinion is making itself ■ felt — that Ministers aro seriously occupied with proposals for reorganisation and retrenchment in the public service. Any reasonable movement in this direction is to be commended. But no reform, no retrenchment, can be enduring which leaves the public servico opon to use by the party in power as a party machine. But the work of reform must go further than this. The railways must be placed in independent hands. Parliament's control over the railways must be converted into real control in the national interest; at present it is not control at all, but a scrambling competition amongst members for Ministerial favours. 'The country is better educated on tho subject of administrative misdeeds than it used to be, £>nd oaly energy and persistence arc necessary in order that the present Par-

liamenfc may overthrow the bad system under which the government of the country has been carried on for so long.