THE DOMINIONS FINANCES.

Shannon News, 9 March 1928, Page 3

THE DOMINIONS FINANCES.

In his speech at Dunedin last week the Minister of Finance opened his defence of the Government's policy by summing up the statements made against, it: they were charges of overborrowing, unduly burdensome taxation, and extravagance in administration.' In going on to deal with the question of public borrowing the Min ister asked that the public bear in mind the purposes for which moneys were borrowed. Ail this money is nevertheless loan money in spite of its alleged rcproductiveness. It represents an anticipation by the Dominion of future production. The Minister agrees with the Government's critics that borrowing should be reduced. From figures he gave it would appear that the public lebt is increasing. The result of the public demand, for large capital expenditure is that the country has in iuiud large undertaking which now cannot profitably ; be suspended or abandoned. The Government is"after all merely answering the cries of the populace/ and Mr. Stewart replies to his critics in the typical Scotch manner of asking them the question—what do they propose should be done to deai with "the situation other than-'by-abandoning large schemes unfinished, and without intensifying unemployment, or abandoning public ownership of certain monopolies? In dealing with taxation the Minister was not satisfactory. It is not to be denied that the revision of the, income-tax scale got rid of some anomalies which had developed. It is also true that what the Government is taking in the way oi nigher payments from payers of in-jome-tax has been remitted in other ways. This will not, hot-ever, ease hose who are penalised individually. The main point, however, is that the State is taking too much wealth from die public for disbursement by. State officials on State services which are not' am as private enterprise would run them in the majority of cases. In dci'ending alleged State extravagance the Minister dealt with expenditure by two Departments neither of which is in it-' self a large spending office —the High Commissioner's office and the Treasury. .The Minister' sought to defend the Governmental expenditure by stating ■hat the work in each had increased greatly. This is undoubtedly true, bib .r will take a lot to convince us that any Department's work has so increas :d that it demands fourfold expendiure compared with that of 1914. The endency seems to be to use two men where one should do. In any private ■ the quadruplication of salaries slid expenses in 14 years is most un isual. It must mean a vast expansion .if operations: and to be justified these .iiould be productive operations. We do not think that in any of the Departments under Government control the expenditure is justifiable. A private concern running the Treasury, or the High Commissioner's offices, for instance, would undoubtedly have run thorn cheaper. This is equally true of all the Departments, Ministers should insist that Departmental expenditure should be decreased, and further, that Departments should wherever possible be cut right out. Certainly there should not be any further increase either in staffs or in Departments or in expenditure. The public should support this by ceasing to clamour for new expenditure. The waste and consequent taxation of private wealth in this country is enormous. We are certain that the country, could be well run at considerably less cost and greater efficiency, if a serious effort were made.