NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1222, 2 September 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

» —- The report of tho discussion in the House of representatives yesterday on the Hutt Railway and Itoacl Improvement Act should be read by every citizen. It is a most damaging exposure oncc more of the extraordinary financial methods of the Ward Administration. The original Hutt Ilailway Improvement Bill of 1903 was brought down by Sir Joseph Ward, who said that authority was asked for £100,000, to be spent at the rate of not more than £25,000 a year. "The total amount of the authority we ask for," he said, "is £100,000. Tho reclamation of tho land and the disposal of the same will make up the balance, and I would not be surprised to find after it is finally completed that the cost to tho colony will bo practically nothing, on account of the proceeds from the sale of the land reclaimed." "The total amount asked for the work," ho said again, "is £100,000." In the Legislative Council the then Attorncy ; Gcncral said: "It was estimated that the cost of the work would be some £100,000— not more — and that the amount- would be repaid by the sale of the lands reclaimed and the lands that might be sold under the scheme of the Bill." It was with pardonablc'surprisc that the House found itself in 1905 asked to authorise the expenditure of another £100,000 on the work. Sin Joseph Ward gave no reason whatever, as Mr. Herries and other _ "members pointed out, for the doubling of the cost, especially as Parliament had not been told that any fui tlier expenditure would be necessary, but had been definitely informed that the work would cost "souk £100,000—not more." Sib Joseph Ward denied that he had cither stated or conveyed to the House that the work could lie done for that amount: "I have no hesitation whatever in saying that I convoyed no impression when I brought down the Bill originally that £100,000 would comprise the total expenditure upon this work." And yet, speaking a few days later his own colleague, the then AttorneyGeneral, sajd in the Legislative Council that "personally lie had been led to make tho statement [that tho josfc would not cxcced £100,000], believing that the land would bo reclaimed and sold as tho work progressed and the moneys necessary for the continuation of the straightening and duplication of tlio line would be obtained from that source." It was with something like a shock that the House found Sir Joseph AVard , asking in 1007 for a third £100,000.

Finally Mil. Mii.lah, us Minister for Biiilwnys, brought in a Bill asking tor another £30,000. Nothing is more clear than that the whole work has been carried out in a thoroughly extravagant manner, like the Dnn-odin-Mosgiel duplication, which has cost nearly three times the original estimate. And now. Bin Joseph Ward attempts to brazen the thing through with noise and bluster, lie even, to serve his purpose, disowns the statements on record in Hansard made by his colleague the then representative of the Government in the Legislative Council, a gentleman respected by all parties, who has since passed away. After all noisy bluster is a poor tiling in face of recorded facts. It is really time that the PimiE Minister tried something new.

We were informed by cable yesterday that the Victorian Government has managed to get its Preferential Voting Bill through by the narrow margin of two votes. The Labour Opposition, which sees in the Bill only the extinction of Labour seats held on a minority vote, was solidly against the Bill, and the Bill has evidently been opposed also by those Ministerialists who fear that they may lose their seats to other Liberals. By requiring the electors to indicate their preference for candidates by the figures' 1, 2, 3, and so on, a discrimination is provided for by which the less popular candidates arc eliminated one by one. Nobody really doubts in his own mind that this is the most desirable method — this, or i. method based on the same principle—to apply to Parliamentary elections. It has this enormous advantage over the sccond ballot system that it eliminates that room for corrupt bargaining between ballots which discredited the_ second ballot in Europe and led to its abandonment by the countries that tried it. Fears "have been expressed in Victoria that the preferential voting system will lead, as the Australasian puts it, to "a rush of candidates on behalf of the Scripture referendum party, the Temperance party, and other sections" resulting in a confusion of issues. We think that these sectional interests will in the sum cancel the effects of one another; but of course assurance could be made doubly sure by splitting the country" up into fewer and larger electorates, each of which would return a number of members. It is that while electoral reform is a live issue, and in some cafes •an immediate issue, in many countries, the only operation of the Ward Government in the field of electoral procedure lias been the introduction of a system that has been proved evil, that has been generally abandoned elsewhere, and that has "not the smallest chance of establishment or re-establishment in any other country in the world.

We trust that our readers have been following' closely the very remarkable disclosures made in connection with the Mokau transaction. Some of the evidence given by the witnesses who have presented themselves for examination before the Parliamentary Committee gives an insight into the very curious methods pursued in connection with Native land dealings, but what is of most interest, of course, is the procedure adopted in order to secure the sale and purchase of the Mokau Block. Yesterday evidence of a most extraordinary character was given by the President of the Maori Land Board. Wo cannot at the present stage of affairs comment on the disclosures made, but would advise thosoof-our readers who arc interested in this matter to study them for themselves.

Ax attempt- was made yesterday to convcy the impression that the Wellington local bodies which are charged with the cost and upkeep of the Hutt Mainßoad arc endeavouring to shirk their reasonable liability for the payment of the cost of the construction of the road. This, of course, is not the ease. The local bodies have been placed in a very unfortunate, and to some of them a very serious, position by the extravagant manner in which the work has been carried out. They were not consulted as to the class of road to be built-, and they arc called on to pay a price at least double that anticipated. No one disputes the fact that the road is an immense improvement, but local bodies, unlike the Government-, prefer a £50,000 work which will serve their purpose satisfactorily, rather than a £100,000 undertaking which is in the iiatureof an extravagant luxury. There is another aspect of the matter The local bodies want to know how the cost of the work was made up. It was carricd out jointly with the railway work in conncction with the duplication of the Hutt line, and the cost apportioned to the road-making is so enormous that it is not unnatural that there should be doubts raised as to whether the road has not been saddled with more than its fair share of the expenditure. It is quite proper that the whole matter should be thoroughly probed before the local bodies are called on to pay a single penny towards the cost of the undertaking.