The Press FRIDAY, JULY 1, 1960. Nelson Railway Work

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29245, 1 July 1960, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, JULY 1, 1960. Nelson Railway Work

Neither the Government nor the Commissioner of Works came well out of the discussion on the introduction of the Nelson Railway Authorisation Bill. No-one would take exception to the commissioner giving advice on a contentious issue to his Minister, but strong exception could be taken to phrases in the commissioner’s letter which reflected upon the “ understanding ” of members of Parliament. Civil servants, and especially civil servants of Mr Hanson’s long experience, should know how important it is to principles of sound government that they keep clear of controversy with the legislature. Each branch of government has its sphere and functions; if one branch exceeds them, controversy and loss of respect must follow.

Mr Hanson’s reflection on the “ understanding ” of members was in fact the only new thing in his letter, which otherwise reported the substance of his letter to the Auditor-General on May 8 which was printed in the Auditor-General’s report. In February, the AuditorGeneral had drawn attention to the stipulation in the Public Works Act that a special Act of Parliament is required for the construction of every railway. The absence of such legal authority for the Nelson railway caused' the Audit Office to question the legality of proposed expenditure on the railway. The Supplementary Estimates included £25,000 for “preliminary work”, which the Audit Office presumed would cover surveys and planning costs only. However, a Cabinet minute stated that “ expendi- “ ture incurred in the construction of the Nelson rail- “ way should be charged to “ vote: Works Railway Con- “ struction ”, There was, however, no such vote in existence; nor was there statutory authority or Parliamentary appropriation for the construction work on the railway. This was the

position /When Mr Nash visited Nelson on March 1 and performed what the Press Association described as “ the official “ ceremony to mark the start “ of work on the construction of “the £lOl million railway lirtk “between Nelson and the South

“Island Main'Trunk system”. On April 4 the Prime Minister in a memorandum endeavoured to persuade the Audit Office to pass payments out of a vote " Railway Construction ”, that would be reinstated in the Public Works Account ‘as from April 1. The Audit Office had no hesitation in rejecting this request; it replied on April 5 notifying the Prime Minister that it did not seem reasonable to ask the Audit Office to pass charges to the new vote for the construction of the line when such expenditure was so clearly at variance with the law. It was a month after this that the Audit Office wrote to the Ministry of Works seeking guidance on whether expenditure incurred on the quarrying and cartage of soil for reclamation of a station site, causeways, and access tracks could be classified as a preliminary expense and not construction work. On May 16 the Commissioner of Works gave the Audit Office an assurance that the work in progress was “ pre- “ liminary investigatiohal “ work ’.’; and with this assurance the Audit Office passed the expenditure. It is, clear that, on the very best face that could be put on these transactions, the Government was sailing very close to the wind. It came within the letter of the law—as the Audi-tor-General saw it—only when the commissioner’s assurance was given. The discussion on the Nelson Railway Authorisation Bill did not do justice to the grave issues raised by the Auditor-General’s report; and the Opposition does no more than its duty in seeking to have the matter properly discussed in Parliament.