PIN-PRICKING CHARGE AGAINST PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 April 1947, Page 6

PIN-PRICKING CHARGE AGAINST PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

[SPECIAL TO STAB] AUCKLAND, This Day. Pointed comment on what he described as the “pin-pricking methods” of the Public Works Department was made by Mr M. E. Fitzgerald, engineer to the Matamata County Council, in a report to that body . After stating that he had been unable to get satisfactory answers to major problems, he described “irritating matters which were thoroughly impractical.” One example was that, although for years a satisfactory standard royalty of 3d to 6d per yard had been given to cover access to and removal of sand from a pit, now it was insisted that on each occasion such a pit was used the land purchase officer had to be called in from Hamilton to assess the damage done. Another was the need for this officer to fix the royalty on metal when this had already been fixed by a magistrate. The clerk, Mr Beck, referred to a recent visit from a Public Works clerk who had said that the council would have to alter its system of checking and charging stores. “We are satisfied, the Audit Department is satisfied, and I am not going to alter it for any Public Works clerk,” said Mr Beck. The engineer said that other counties were making similar complaints of petty hindrances. The chairman, Mr E. D. White, said that, while small in themselves, the matters were intensely irritating. His suggestion that evidence be collected from other counties and that action be taken through the Counties Association was approved.