HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 15, 18 January 1930, Page 12

HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

"MATTER OF GREAT REGRET"

CRITICISM or FIGURES

DISTRICT MEMBER'S VIEWS,

"It is a matter of great regret that Sir. Joseph Ward has introduced into our national politics in an acute form the north versus south issue which I thought dead long ago,"" said Mr. H. G. E. Mason, M.P. for Eden. "By 'his attitude towards works in the Auckland province', as contrasted with those in the South Island, Sir Joseph has raised feelings which may be a grave detriment to the country for long years ahead.''

Mr. Mason said he doubted very much whether the decision had been ,ariivcd at as a result of the considerations the Minister set forth. It was clear almost from the moment of the present Government's accession to office that it had been decided not to go with the Morningside tunnel, although it was resolved to delay the publication of that decision as long as possible.

If confirmation of this were needed it was seen in the peculiar difficulty which the Minister of Railways (the Hon. W. B. Taverner) was put to last session in answering questions concerning the matter. Still, the Government kept up the pretence that the scheme was being seriously considered. Doubtless that had to be done because, at the time; a general election was not impossible. This absence of straightforwardness on the part of the Government, was the particularly annoying feature of the whole affair. The reasons put forward by the Minister appeared rather to be excuses to justify a decision already made by Sir JoseDh Ward on parochial grounds.

During the session, Sir Joseph Ward, ill reply to insistent questioning, said the matter of the Morningside tunnel could not >ho decidede at, once, because it ■was necessary to determine -svhat were the financial requirements of the other works. The proper time for inquiry, •ho seemed to suggest, would be when the Public Works estimates came down. This clearly indicated that Sir Joseph had decided that such works as the South Island, rail way link between Pictori and Christchurch would have an allocation made to it first and that the Morningside tunnel would be considered if anything .were left over. It was

scarcely necessary to say how much chance the Morningside scheme had alter that decision. The Morningside scheme was referred to in the railway statement of 1924. where the cost of the tunnel was set down at £449,000. It was cuiious to find the Minister of Railways now quoting a very much larger figure. The difference "called for some- -explanation, and, in fairness to the citizens, the Minister should give that explanation. Costs of construction had not changed materially in the intervening years. As against* the cost of the there would be saved the cost of duplicating the line between Morningside and Newmarket—a matter of £133,000. .Presumably the difficulties of construction mentioned by the Minister were perfectly apparent to the engineers who made the original estimates. It was hard to understand why the Minister discussed at so much length the relative convenience of tunnelling as against the cut and cover method of construction. The demand .was for improved communication and not for any particular method of construction.