The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1918. DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 August 1918, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1918. DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

The publication of tine Defence Expenditure Commissions report naturally creates considerable interest, if only in view of the criticism tlrat has taken place from time to time during the war, as to the administration of the department under the control of Sir James Allen. Not even the most trenchant of these critics expected to find that the investigation by, the commission otchH disclose i nothing but fante.,

have been faults in plenty was evident to itlie most superficial spectator, but it was also clear that 111 ere were merits and wholehearted efforts to do the best possible under circumstances surrounded by many handicaps. It has to be remembered that the work was entirely new and complicated, calling for the services of the most expert organisers and men of exceptional business ability. The initial fault of the Government was that instead of calling to its aid the most suitable brains in the Dominion, it merely engaged those nearest at hand K and groped'its way along a very thorny path, sometimes with remarkable success and at other times! with signal failure. Nothing else coud be expected, the wonder being that so much good work was carried out, and that the failures, were not more numerous. The reference to the commission was to"inquire into the efficiency and' economy of the financial administration of the Defence Departments •and other departments acting in aid thereof during the present 'war." The report is, on the a credit to the commissioners. It: 4s what may be termed a human document instead of a mere official statement, and, as-such, is well worthy of perusal by those who entertaining matter. The report not only whitewashes the Department, but accords it a ;measure of praise that may possibly be regarded as fulsome. Summing up its conclusions, the commission says: "We wish to emphasise that we were commissioned to seek out faults; not to extol virtues. We" have looked for failings, and recorded them herein, but on the way we found admirable work of much greater quality. Therefore, when its strong points are weighed against its weaknesses, especially bearing in mind how scarce competent and experienced assistance was, the Department may well comfort itself proudly." "We quote this significant pronouncement because it clearly indicates the spirit in which the commissioners carried out their duties. It should be noted that the inquiry was into the "financial administration" of the Department, and yet the commissioners emphasise "how scarce was the competent and experienced assistance at the Minister's disposal." 'That is really begging the question, and bears out our \ contention that the Government should have gone outside its own | circle and followed the example i-of the Motherland, by securing the >very best and mose expert advice. To say-that such advice was scarce is to condemn the course taken by the Government. The fact that in •connection with an expenditure of forty million sterling no case of fraud, embezzlement or collusion had been discovered is at first sight extremely creditable, but it opens up the question as to whether the right steps were taken to unearth irregularities; but even assuming that no direct illegalities took place, what the public is most concerned with is the amount of money that could have been saved by an efficient system that would have prevented waste and overlapping. The training, equipping and despatch to the front of 100,000 men has been carried out—successfully, the report claims—but lias it been effected as economically as it should have been, and doubtless would have been, had expert civilian assistance been obtained, instead of that given by a host of men who have been given military rank and pay, many of whom should have 1 been at the front, fighting in the trenches? To a large extent the criticism that has fallen upon the Minister of Defence has been due to lus resentment of criticism on his multitudinous officers, and his attitude of "Hands off my officers." The work has been done and no one doubts that the Department has been actuated* by the best intentions, but those who know best where the failures were are the men who have gone through the whole business, and taken part in the struggle against the enemy. It is their evidence that places a different light on the administration of the Department, and that evidence will never be officially available, for the simple reason that these men would not "give the show away." The Minister is entitled to the thanks ox cue country for his great services and the self-sacrifices he has mace. Doubtless he would be the hi-st to admit that if he had to go through the same severe ordeal he would do so ou far different lines ihc m,,,,, sueeess that achieved is in great measure due to the magnificent loyalty and patiiotism of the units of our forces and the driving power of the peo- £;; J l ; epoi ; t plainly s . that there has been excessive centralisation, lack of co-ordination, the predominance of the military groove over the business methodsso. necessary in civilian enterprises, all tending to extravagance and waste, instead of efficiency and economy. It ma v be* claimed that these, are trifles compared -witltthe despatch of tire required men> to the front, but thef object of the inquiry ■■■waa-& i e,£ B^

Ed in that light, the report shows that the appointment of the com- [ mission was thoroughly justified, while the recommendations emphasise this in no uncertain manner, especially as to the reduction of establishments and the abolition of professional pay. There are other matters worthy of comment on another occasion.