The Press Monday, November 7, 1927. Public Works Expenditure.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19151, 7 November 1927, Page 8

The Press Monday, November 7, 1927. Public Works Expenditure.

During the discussion in the House of Representatives on the Public Works Statement on Friday night Sir Joseph Ward made some statements which deserve to be underlined. The House, he said, was becoming a kind of great Road Board. Members .ill came along and asked for millions of money, "knowing very well," he added, "that ''there was no money to meet all "olaims." He referred to the use of local pressure and local agitation, and suggested as a remedy for " this fright"ful centralisation" the establishment of some system of "district councils." It is very easy to retort upon Sis

Joseph that when he was the chief colleague of Mr Seddon, and when he was himself Prime Minister, the bad system which he now condemns was flourishing and was upheld by his own Administration. And this one certainly could urge very strongly against him if there I were any reason to think that his present criticism was factious merely. There is no reason, however, for thinking any such thing, or for supposing anything other than that Sir Joseph does now realise that the method of arranging the developmental expenditure of the State is fundamentally un-

sound. The House of Representatives really can be described as nothing better than a huge Road Board when it is dealing with expenditure on public works. Local bodies do compete in the pushing and shoving for large helpings of public money: members of Parliament do " battle " for their districts as of old; and the prime concern of the Government, as in earlier days, is to give each district " a fair share" of the money available. Nobody doubts that the G&vernment is perfectly honest in the matter, or that the funds are allocated without any regard to political or Party considerations. But the system is bad. It ensures, to begin withj that the Government must borrow and spend more on public works of various kinds than is actually necessary, and a great deal more than the financial resources of the Dominion really permit. This will go on so long as the settlement of the public works remains in the hands of the Public Works Department, subject to the pressure of local districts upon the politicians and the Government. The Public Works Department has very inadequate means of finding out what works are necessary,,and no means at all —even, if it had any inclination this way—of estimating the ultimate economic results of the expenditure programmes. Many millions of pounds have been lost, directly and indirectly, through the maintenance of the present haplazard hand-to-mouth method of spending the money borrowed for developmental purposes. Many more millions will continue to be lost as long as the country is content to dispense with an independent Development Board which will survey the nation's real needs and prescribe the programme of development each year. The Public Works Department ought not to be anything nore than a Department of engineerng and construction. It is not fitted o have anything to do with developnent policy, and five decades q£ use lave abundantly proved that this is tlso true of any Government. So long is the politicians have a hand in he settlement of development policy, o long the borrowed millions, will be ineconomically laid out. The probem is to get rid of the pushing and hoving of competitors for a "fair ' share " of the millions, and to reduce he Public Works Department to its >roper status, and this problem can be olved only by the appointment of a »ermanent Development Board indeicndent of everybody except Parliament, and uninfluenced by any coni deration except the economic requireaents of the Dominion.