OUR PUBLIC WORKS POLICY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 865, 11 July 1910, Page 8

OUR PUBLIC WORKS POLICY.

' PROVINCIALISM BECOMES A ' VIRTUE. ffHE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS OF CROWN MINISTERS. 816,767,716 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.

(By Samuel Vaile.)

. I give below in detail the table foisted upon Parliament on December 23 last by the lately appointed Minister for Public Works, and published in Hansard. Owing to a serious illness 1 did not come on this till early in April, wheal through the Auckland and Wellington press I at onco exposed its inaccuracy. It will be interesting to learn how far the Cabinet is responsible for this Ministerial statement. Seeing that the Prime Minister was for •seven years Minister for Railways, it is almost impossible to believe that ho could not at first glance have detected Hani the statement was incorrect. The moment the figures were shown to me I pronounced them utterly wrong, and ■so could any man with less than half iny knowledge of our railways. Is it 31ks rule that any one Crown Minister ■can do a thing like this without the (knowledge of his fellow Ministers and 50 unscathed? TABLE NO. 4. The following table appears in HanBard, No. 23, 1909, page 1544. It was presented to Parliament by the Hon. Roderick M'Kenzie, Minister for Public Works: — ."STATEMENT SHOWING EXPENDITURE ON RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION EACH YEAR, FROM APRIL 1, 1890, to' MARCH 31, 1909, IN NORTH AND SOUTH ISLANDS RESPECTIVELY. North South Jear ending Islnnd. Island. Amount. Amount. UarchSi. ' £ £ IbOI 102,891 78,008 1892 .: 66,100 58,666 1893 129,630 75,657 IS3-1 :. 95,382 72,029 1855 124,542 64,204 189,. ..: 83,523 68,764 189/' 84,806 52,219 183 - 113,751 57,649 IEfJ 103,892 1C8.380 19-30 65,603 136,730 191' 191,183 168,222 10.1 301.853 264,500 19.3 199,842 155,087 " 19M 274,949 222,609 19:.o 252,618 189,341 19.6 344,831 294,119 19C7 560,760 346,849 • 19.-.3 455,054 268,960 1909 ■ 552,756 376,098 Totals ...... £3,903,916 £3,058,091 NOTE.-Payment to Midland Railway £150,000 not included in the South laland figures. ' 'That return proved conclusively that ithe assertions of the honourable memIcrs who had so strenuously contended ■that the South Island railways were ieing pushed on at the expense of the Kortli had no foundation in fact. The }x>sition was reversed, and nearly £1,000,000 more had been spent on (railway construction in the North Isjland by the Liberal party." The following. are the statements as [presented to Parliament by the various Ministers for Railways named in the fourth column:— TABLES OF EXPENDITUEE ON HAIL WAY CONSTRUCTION IK NORTH AND SOUTH ISLANDS DURING LAST 19 YEARS, AS SHOWN BY RAILWAYS STATEMENTS :- Minister North. South. Premier Railways /Tears. Island. Island, at time, at time. Amount. Amount. £ £ 4691 ... 217,504 62,961 Atkinson Commissioners ■1892 ... 83,885 69,675 Ballanco Do. 1893 ... 183,767 84,982 Seddon Do. 1894 ... '99,759 75,842 Seddon Do. 1895 ... 147,494 53.C40 Soddon Cadman 1896 ... 97,801 83,396 Seddon Oadman 1897 ... 114,987 91,129 Seddon Oadman 1898 ... 228,181 108,884 Beddon Cadman 1899 ... 106,024 212,898 Seddon Cadman 1900 ... 230,904 132,401 Seddon Ward 1901 ... 324,451 351.334 Seddon Ward 1902 ... 601,790 664,706 Seddon Ward 1903 . ... 472,047 246,335 Seddon Ward 1904 ... 426,204 1,532,081 Seddon Ward 1905 ... 414,760 415,724 Seddon Ward 1906 ... 529,477 558,904 Seddon Ward 1907 ... 736,289 610,194 Ward H'Wn's 1908 ... 777.430 519,142 Ward H'l-JVs 1909 ...1,«™<12 655,129 Ward Millar North South Island. Island. £ £ SEailway Ministers' figures 7,255,966 6,473,757 ■Mr. M'KelUie's statement 3,903,916 3,058,091 Difference £3,352,050 3,415,666 Difference in the two Ministerial statemrents of expenditure, £6,767,716 for the 19 grears. It must be remembered that the (amount charged against the North Island in both cases includes the million paid for tho Wellington-Manawatu ißailway and the amount charged to the South Island does not include the 1£150,000 debentures paid to the Midland Company. Correcting these figores, tho account between the two islands stands thus: —North Island, £6,255,966; South, £6,623,757, or ■£367,791 more in tho South than in ithe North during the last 19 years, "while ■ the total expenditure to date .stood thus: — North, £13,040,612; 'South, £16,011,820 on March 31, 1909, Tvhich, with the account corrected as (above, shows that the South has scfcured an advantage over the North of 1*4,021,000.

When considering table No. 4, the ►point to which the reader's attention fis particularly directed is this:—They ;aro both Government statements made phy responsible Crown. Ministers holdSing two of the most important portfolios in the Cabinet, and these disiagree as to what was expended on our railways during the last nineteen years ;to the extent of £6,767,716, no less. 'How oaii tlie public accounts be kept :to allow 'of khbli a difference? •

Air. Roderick M'Kenzie, recently ap-.pni-ito: 1 . Minister for Public Works, in ■iis detail table, shows that £6,962,007 was ixjionded on our railways during >tlu- last 19 years; but the Railway •CoiiNV.isr.inners, Sir Alfred Cadman, Sir ■3osej)l/ Ward, Hon. Hall-Jones, and Hon. J. A. Miliar, unitedly say that they ixist during this period £13,729,■723. This is how tho difference arises, 'and I want to know which we arc to Believe, as they are both authoritative Government statements. For my part I li'i noL believe either. I am" absoluuiy' certain that Mr. M'Konzie's tcble is wrong from beginning to end. lavrc is not ono correct figure in it. "i'ho. publication of such a document m TJan.sard is an insult to the Dominion, aad 1 say that if the Cabinet are now not aware that my accusation is a true one, they would tall upon their fellow Minister to justify his figures. They, however, know that if they did trouble would arise, and by doing nothing they hope the affair will bo allowed to blow ovor. It will not if I can help it. To show tlio utterly scandalous nature of this Ministerial imposition, 1 will ask attention to the- two years out. of the nineteen in which tho largest expenditure took place— the years 1904 and 1909:— North. South. X £ 1901. Mr. R. M'Kcnzio's statement 274,049 222,609 ©09. Mr. E. M'Kenzie's statement 352,756 376,098 .£627,705 ,£598,707 &fr. B. Mifonzio's total for tho .two years .£1,226,112 North. South. £ £ J904. Sir Joseph Ward's statement 426,204 1,532,081 1909. Hon. J. A. Millar's etateroent 1,662,612 655,129 J22.088.81fi ,£2.187,210

Sir Joseph Ward's and the Hon. Sir. Millar's statement of tho iotal expenditure during these two years ..• 4,276,020 Deduct. Mr. E. M'Kenzio's statement 1,226,112 Difference in two years 3,049,014 How could an error to this' extent— over three millions in two years —eouio to have been made? It should not bo forgotten that tho object of tlio statement given to Parliament was to make it appear that since tho so-called Liberal party came into power they have spent more money in railway construction in tho North than in tho South. Headers will probably remember that another member of the present Ministry, Mr. George Fowlds, was also, strangely, at fault at the last election. When the inaccuracy of the iigures wns brought home ho pleaded that the information was supplied to him by "a responsible officer of the Crown,' * and, therefore, must be correct. Mr. Roderick M'lvcnzie will probably plead tho same thing. The other Mr. Mackenzio, Mr. T. Mackenzie, recently complained that he had received newspapers published in London and Washington, in which it was stated that tho whole, Civil Service of New Zealand was "redundantly staffed for the purpose of corruption." For my part I believe that these writers were not far wrong. It is to bo hoped that some means may bo found for compelling the Minister for Public Works to stato what has become of tho £6,767,716, which most certainly has been charged to the railways account, but according to him (Mr. M'Kenzie) wns never expended on them. Where does he say it has gone to? It has been borrwod and has gone somewhere. Where? I ask what right lias the Cabinet to submit us, as a community, to this indignity? Most certainly the situation ought never to have arisen, and could" not have done so if our public accounts were properiy kept. I do not believo that the railway account is the only one so'kept. ■.;:

I should much like to see-an investigation take place of the State coal mine's account. The Education Department accounts would also I think stand a good deal of looking into, so would lands for settlement, etc.

( As regards our State coal mines, from 1883 to 1905 thero always appeared in tho railways statements in the return of "stores" a list of prices of tho contracts for tho supply of coal. These varied from 3s. 10d.: to 31s. per ton. In 1905 all the higher-priced contracts vanish from tho list," the prices quoted ranging from os. to Bs. id. per ton. From 1907 all prices vanish, the names of four or five companies with whom contracts are made axe given, but that is all. What does this mean? Is it a fact that the Railways Department is compelled to take all their higher-price coal from the State's Coal Mines Department at just such price as they choose to demand, and thus these mines are, made to show a profit? No information as to tho position of the State coal mines investment is to bo found in either the annual volume of New Zealand Statistics, or the Offieial Year Book—a, sure indication that there is nothing in it to boast about.