AND THE PUBLIC PAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1265, 21 October 1911, Page 4

AND THE PUBLIC PAY.

Votes for nearly three raillions of public works expenditure were passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday night and in the early hours of Friday morning. At times there were 20 members present; at times '10; at times even 60; but at no time after midnight, save when the division bell rang, were there more than half the members of the House in atlendancc on their duties, and at one time the number present sank as low as 12. Twelve members present out of SO, while hundreds of thousands of pounds of the public's money were being voted away for works which it is the duty of members to know all about. And of the 12, 20, or 30 members in attendance

after midnight not more than eight or ten were interesting themselves in the proceedings, while quite as many were either lying full length on the benches asleep or dozing. This is the way votes are forced through Parliament and the country committed to the expenditure. The House met on Monday of this week and sat until o.'la a.m. on Tuesday; on Tuesday it sat from 2.50 p.m. until 2.4 D a.m. on Wednesday; on Wednesday it sat from 2.H0 p.m. until <1.5 a.m. on Thursday; and on Thursday it sat from 2.,10 p.m. until r> a.m. on Friday. On Friday it met at 2.U0 p.m. and at time of writing is still sitting. And in addition to members being expected to be in their places during these long hours, they have to attend to their work during the mornings. _ This is the way the country's business is attended to—members are exhausted and millions of money are authorised for expenditure by a remnant of the total membership of the whole House and the majority of the few who sec the sittings through simply stay there in order to vote as they arc* told by the Minister in charge. And the public pay. If our readers wiO turn to an article headed "Votes in Southland," which appears in another column, they will sec an evidence of the inevitable product of these outrageous methods. The Public Works Estimates, it should be explained, consist of hundreds of items of large and small sums of money to be expended on public works of various kinds. It will be readily understood that where there arc so many votes and where in the total so large a sum as £2,500,000 is involved, it is necessary that there should be close scrutiny to ensure against jobbery or waste. The public send members to Parliament to represent them and to safeguard their interests—the nation's interests. How can they do this if they arc not in their placcs when theso large questions of public expenditure are under consideration? And how can they be in their placcs when Parliament sit-s all night and Committees fill in the balance of the time 1 But let us see what happened over these "Votes in Southland." Mr. Massey, ' somewhere about 3 o'clock on Friday morning, directed the attention of the House to three votes for small sums to be expended in Southland. He had been informed that these votes were for work on private property and were for the purpose of benefiting private individuals. The Minister in charge admitted that there was some truth in the information in Mr. Massey's possession, and added that the matter was being investigated ancl that the work had been stopped for the present. Whichever way this matter is looked at it is a most serious thing. Who placed the votes on the Estimates ? The Government. Surely then the Government should know before it asked Parliament to vote the money whether the works were public works'? If tlicv were not public works then the Government had no right to spend the money. But apparently the Minister in charge docs not know even now,_ months after the votes were provided, whether the works arc for private or for public purposes. And the crowning evidence of the- absolute rottenness of the present system is that the votes in question arc for works in the Prime Minister's own electorate. Could there be any stronger proof of the utter worthlcssncss of the present methods of conducting public works expenditure than is here disclosed 1 The Prime Minister, even when the works arc in his own electorate, docs not know that votes have been passed which will mean the expenditure of public money for the benefit of a private individual. How then can private members bo expccted to know anything of these votes when the Prime Minister, with his inside knowledge as a member of the Cabinet-, backed by his local knowledge as the member for the district, comcs down and tells the House lie knows nothing of the works for which this money is voted in his electorate, until long after the votes are passed ? Can anyone really believe that the public interest is properly safeguarded under the present system 1 Is not the system proposed by Mr. Herdman providing for the appointment of a Board of Experts to pass all public works expenditure infinitely sounder and infinitely more likely to protect the public interest and prevent jobbery and waste?