LOAVES AND FISHES.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15017, 11 July 1914, Page 4

LOAVES A ND FISHES.

DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC i n WORKS FUND. __ ....... 03 PRINCIPLE OF NON-POLITICAL _ CONTROL. Jj . """ vi P< AN ENGLISH ANALOGY. bOn Tnesday last there appeared in c< "The Press" - forecast of the Bill which it the Government is introducing with is the object of reforming the present sys- g tern of public works grants to local B bodies. If the forecast is correct an t , independent non-political Board of (pro- « bably) threo members will be set up to control' the administration of -ese q grants. Like the Public Service Com- lt missioners, the Board will he independ- L ent of the Government, but responsible ti to Parliament. , _" „ This reform -would do away with what P has long been regarded as a serious . ©vil. At present the Government has, f( unfettered power to allocate the grants s , (for roads, bridges, etc.) just as it C chooses. The allocations are submitted p to Parliament in tho "i-üblic Works « Estimates," a bulky production con- t taining thousands of items. The House w discusses these, but it never happens 0 that any member risks attack upon the * votes for his district by criticising then votes for the district of any other member. It need hardly be said that . with the exception of a tiny fraction of v the estimates, there is no item concern- C ing which 79 members of tho House are s no"t in complete--ignorance. The 80th in « each case is the member in whose dis- - trict the vote is to be spent. v Men have grown up, died, and lett .<• families since the viciousness of tins a system was first pointed out. Its evils ■. | were recognised long before the late ! Anthony Trollope wrote of them in his ■ book on Australia and New Zealand, „ published over forty years ago. In-one 1 of his chapters in the New Z-ealaud sec- ' tion of "his work, Trollope wrote thus of - the system of public works expenditure (which went, then, chiefly on railways). But what Trollope said about railways applies to all the otlier public works :— •'When a Minißtor achieves the power of handling millions in the mtrhuiacturo of railways, the temptation to waste hundreds oi thousands is very heavy on him Each portion of a colony, each district, or each province, wants its railway. ' 4 A railway for you gentle- . men down south!' says a northern mem- _ her 'Certainly, but on condition that ] we "have one here, up north.' loan 1 eager politician, anxious to please his * own constituency, it matters little that , it bo shown to him that there will be ( nothing for the . northern railway to < carry, while the other may be expected ] to do a fair'business. Votes are counted and the northern gentleman has his way. Then, again', it comes to pass that a largo part of the population ma new country finds so great a benefit < from the immediate expenditure of the money—labourers who get the Government wages, and of course, vote, and i tradesmen who cater for the labourers, < aud, of course, vote—that the patriotic i Minister anxious only for his country s good, finds that the country will certainly be robbed of his services unless h-e maintains this popular condition of < things. In such circumstances a Minister is apt—l will not say to become unscrupulous, but to allow great lati- j tude to his scruples." _ For the reform which the Massey Government intends to introduce there are precedents in "other _ountries, but none so interesting, when the circum- ' stances are considered, than the precedent set by the Asquith Government in • 1909. In that year the Chancellor introduced a Development Fund Bill, under which provision was made for the expenditure of public moneys, either by way of free grant or loan, on a variety > ot purposes of public utility—forestry, . agriculture, and rural industries, re- . clamation works, harbours;, canals, fish- : cries, and «,o forth. As originally planJ ned, the grants were to be recommended i by an Advisory Committee under Ministerial control, and this provision was promptly subjected to 6evere criticism. In the House of Commons on Septem- * ber 6th, 1909, Lord R. Cecil said, in a , debate on the Bill :—-- r "In his opinion the whole scheme i laid itself open to two serious ob- > jectioqs; it was likely to produce j great waste of public money, and.it was almost certain to produce very I grave danger of political corruption. 1 He believed schemes of this kind were in operation in almost all our colonies, and m some foreign countries. He was told only the other day that it was common talk in Canada that a 5 wavering constituency always voted _? in the same way as the majority of jj the country appeared to bo likely to ' decide, so that they might obtain a share of the< loaves a-nd fishes when B the Government came into power.." o The Chancellor of tho F.xchequer, in s the course of his contribution to the de.l. hate, made only a brief reference to d this point. He said ho a agreed that the success of the admint isti-fttion cf the money would depend a entirely upon the character of the member- o; the proposed committee. c If they were to set up an irrespon- , c --sible committee, a committee that _ would he of a purely nolitical complexion, the administration of tho j money might become an instrument of political corruption. But did not that apply to eveT-y expenditure of money? Tt- did hot matter what tho object of the expenditure might 00, if the hotly that" spent the money wai purely partisan, was tainted with political corruption, evr-rythinj. that emanated from it would He corrupt. Therefore, the of the scheme would depend '-non n*en heinr** found for the .-ornmittco who would command, not tli-e annrov.il of one -section __ or narty, hut the confidence of the nation. H-e went on to <y»v that -men men could -** be found, out hi? ntann->r show A d' that **" he was not easy in bis mind. Ie "The Times." On the following day. had a leadine article on the ■ debate. ii nnd dealt forcibly with Lord Robert d Cecil's point:— n "A Government," it said, "armed ,o with power to sanction and finance schemes of development of almost every kind, be they great or small, i. would be something more than human, and something less than democratic," >t if it succeeded in applying tuose powe ers without reference of any sort to its own political advantage." i- "The Times" went on to indicate how r. a Government could misuse this power, ff and added:— n "Lord Robert Cecil was on strong ►f ground when h© pointed to the exo ample presented in this matter by d more than one of th*e colonies. Aus- -" tralian politics were long familiar y with the 'roads and bridges' member, whose one justification before his conn stituency was that he should secure a for it some valuable share of public works. AH growing communities aro familiar with the immense and inden_ fensibl- leverage which such condia tidns create for the, GoTernment in •_ power. We do not ray that English n' -political lifo is free from t e we____ss_s of that kind: but we urge ie most strongly that the door should j. not be opened in an old community, >_ far__i-a already with the complei-e q mrehtimmx o£ local gover-nrnfait. for

opportunities of central. Mimstenal influence and control which younger communities without that mechanism are necessarily compelled to »"«*•• Tho Bill was referred to a Standing Committee of the House, "and ***»**• subject of debates in which ™«*-»jr«£ interesting arguments upon certem principles which will be involved in any reform of tho system of P»* h £_ w °£* expenditure in New Zealand. On September 15th, the first day on which the committee sat, Lord -Robert tjßcU moved to amend the Bill by P™?d "g that the advances, instead of being made on tho representations of the ao> visorv Committee, should be mad© m pursuance of a. recommendation made b-- Fund Commi»i«-»«rs. In supporting bis proposal Lord Robert said:—"The first constitutional duty ot a loc-1 member was to look after the constituent* which he represented, ana it would bo his dtitv to go to the Minister of the day and press the local needs of his neighbourhood upon his attention. Was that a satisfactory system. He saw in it the greatest danger to the purity of our public life,,and the economy of the State." Mr Llovd-G*eorge admitted that tn© question was very important, ana. l ?*; vited the committee to discuss it -rail? "for his'own guidance" ' Mr R"™ s Isaacs (now I_rd Reading, Chief - us- , tice) applauded the proposal of Lord Robert Cecil, which was generally approved. .. On the next day, when the committee met, the Chancellor at once referred to this point, and in a lengthy speech adopted to the full Lord Robert Cecil's suggestion. "It was very important," "he admitted, "that they should have a body which was entirely aloof, which was not responsible to sections, which was not unduly impressed with any personality, whether i nsl< ]f ° r outside "the Administration, a body which would examine schemes on tnerr merits, taking a general survey of tho whole of the claims, co-ordinating," systematising, weighing them in the balance." Ho therefore accepted the proposal to substitute for the Advisory* Committee a small Commission "which should ho independent, during its term of office, of tho executive." T-ord Robert Cecil and the other Unionist member*- of the committee united in expressing their gratification, and, "The Times" report says, "the amendment was then agreed to amid ircnoVal'cheers'" —a most unusual incident in connexion with any Bill. Tlie Commission of eirr'nt members was duly fipf up, and it included Lord Richard Freden'-k Cavpndi'h. Pir Francis Honwood. G.C.M.G.. T-.CR.. Mr Sidney Web!-. Mr W. S TTnld-im?, and Mr Saint-Hill Eardloy-Wilmot.