ONE-SIDED RETURN.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XVIII, Issue XVIII, 4 September 1912, Page 5

ONE-SIDED RETURN.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE AND PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

SOME BIG FIGURES

[By Telegraph—Special to Star.] WELLINGTON, Sep. 4. A return moved for by Mr Campbell, member for Hawke's Bay, relative to the cost of the Governor's new residence, temporary arrangements due to the Parliamentary Buildings fire and the preparation of the new site was piesented by the Minister of Public Works, who read the items as follows: New Government House, £57,844; money spent on present Parliamentary Buildings, not including recurrinocharges, £15,994; cost of Governor's temporary residence, Palmerston North, £4,877; cost of repairing and adding to thfe portion of Parliament Buildings destroyed by fire, £11,983; paid to contractor for work done to cancel the contract, £8,828; estimated cost of present alterations now being made, including probable cost of building, £63,000.

Mr G. W. Russell: Do you include the rents from the departments using the new building. The Minister: No. Mr Russell: A very one-sided return ! Mr R. McKenzie asked whether the return included details.

The Minister replied that if any details were wanted the lion, member should move for them.

Mr Russell complained that the re-tur-i was a most one-sided one, and that no mention was made of the fact that tha cost of repairing the old Parliamentary Buildings, now occupied by departmental offices, and from which there should be a substantial return in the way of rent. He declared that if the Government was going to produce returns like that for political purposes, which was most unfair, then the Opposition would have to scrutinise these returns. (Government laughter.) The way these figures were placed in the return was most unfair.

Mr Hertlman declared that this was the most astounding doctrine that he had ever heard preached by anyone.

The Minister added that because the return showed no the careless and unbusinesslike methods adopted, and the muddle the whole business has got into was why it was unpalatable to the hon. gentlemen opnosite.

Mr R. McKenzie declared there was nothing to cover up in connection with this matter, as it had been before the House on many occasions. As to the amount of money snent in transforming a portion of the old buildings into departmental offices, he (the ex-Minister of Public Works) had had a return comniled, showing that the cost of alterations and additions" was £12,482: the tube cost £560, whilst additions, alterations, removal of debris, and cancellation of contract, etc.. was £21,112. The cost was not excessive.