The Dominion MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1942. CONTROL OF WAR EXPENDITURE

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 20, 19 October 1942, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1942. CONTROL OF WAR EXPENDITURE

Because of the manner in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Holland) was prevented, when a member of the War Administration, from setting before the public his proposals for the supervision of war expenditure, this question has not yet received the attention its importance demands. The action of the censor in prohibiting publication of Mr. Holland’s plan for the establishment of expenditure committees, on account of the Government apparently choosing to regard it as a reflection upon Ministers in charge of spending departments, is to be deplored. But this is merely a side issue as far as the plan itself is concerned. Mr. Holland’s proposal was —and still is—a timely and'valuable one, deserving of careful consideration on its merits, outside any atmosphere of party rivalry or personal feeling. This year New Zealand has planned, to spend £133,000,000 on the war effort alone. It is not difficult for certain weaknesses, leading to waste, to creep into the management of such a programme. On the other hand it provides opportunity—given efficient, specialized control—to achieve appreciable savings. Committees such as proposed by Mr. Holland —or some other tribunal which had both time and capacity to study closely and in detail purchasing orders and contracts from week to week —might well be expected to show, for the same material results, cost reduction which, in the aggregate, would represent real relief to the country. For example, an impartial and competent body, while recognizing that speed in service sometimes necessitates added cost, would be likely to check the all-too-prevalent inclination to disregard costs, or treat them as being of little importance, simply because the need for war expenditure is urgent: Nearly three years ago it was realized in the United Kingdom that a y vigilant and continuous examination of national expenditure was not a task which could suitably be delegated to a routine State department. It was, among other things, to assist an over-worked Treasury that the House of Commons, within a few weeks of.the declaration of war, appointed a select committee to deal with “expenditure connected with the war, whether civil or military.” Its duty was said to be “to ascertain with certainty whether the country is getting full value for the whole of its tremendous expenditure.” The position was clearly stated by a London journal:

The. committee, it remarked, will associate Parliament with the day-to-day scrutiny of administrative expenditure and of new proposals- of expenditure, for nothing is more destructive of public confidence than instances of waste at a time when taxation is necessarily enormous.

Canada has followed the British lead and has appointed a War Expenditure Committee. Its chairman, Mr. A. Fournier, was recently appointed Minister of Public Works. These bodies have not been appointed merely to audit expenditure or review contracts and arrangements long done with but to examine current commitments and contracts, and indicate promptly where savings can be made and greater efficiency obtained. . . • As things are. in New Zealand care may be taken, but the machinery for this strict supervision simply does not exist. In Britain the select committee appointed has been divided into seven subcommittees, each with a distinct sphere of work. Our Treasury and the Audit Office are concerned with the legality of all payments, the correctness of the vouchers, but have neither the special knowledge nor the time to investigate the scope and prices of contracts in these days of mass production, ranging from uniforms to all sorts of buildings and munitions. That is a duty for a committee or committees, such as proposed by Mr. Holland, which could keep all relevant matters under constant review, and' here, as in Great Britain and Canada, provide “the best guarantee against waste and the suspicion of waste.”