PUBLIC WORKS STATEMENT

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXV, Issue LXV, 15 December 1913, Page 2

PUBLIC WORKS STATEMENT

MR. PEARCE'S SPEECH

In his speech in the House on the Public Works Statement, Mr .Pearce (Patea) said: I wish to say a word or t.vo in reply to the accusations which have been hurled across the floor of the House at members on this side, and myself in particular, that we opposed borrowing, and that now we are! borrowing as much as we ever did forj public works and roads. If honorable members will look up our speeches they will see that when we spoke against over borrowing -it was with the reservation that we believed in going on with the roads and railways of ; this country. AW recognised the fact that the whole country, should be opened up and be made productive, and the only way to do that was to road it, and to give the necessary facilities in the way of railways. 'Sir, I am strongly in favor -of borrowing until we have opened up the whole country, but 1 am certainly opposed to borrowing for many of the things that the late Government borrowed for. AYe remember that when the water-power scheme was before the House there was a proposal to borrow £2,500,000 to establish electrical works in different parts of the country. I An Hon. Member: Not in one year. Mr Pearce: The proposal was to start the schemes in one year, and the liability would have been on the country. Hon Members: No. Mr Pearce: That was the first proposal, and I fought against it. An Hon. Member: Prove it. Mr Pearce: I can prove it by my speeches in Hansard that I opposed it, and .the scheme was modified. I believe the scheme that has been undertaken at Lake Coleridge is largely an experiment. In all probability the works will be carried .ut successfully, but the question is whether it will turn out a commercial success when -the money is spent. This is doubtful, though I believe the Christchurch scheme was the best and cheapest scheme to start on. Then, in connection with the expenditure on railways, I would like to point out that what we objected to was that a large amount of the money borrowed was being spent on works that were not immediately required. For instance, the money that was expended on the Hutt, Penrose, Mosgiel, etc., duplications. The money available should be used in opening up the country first, and then we can go in for these duplications if required. In the case of this Hutt railway duplication, for instance, it was carried out at the very time when the traffic on the line was being reduced because of a great portion of the traffic betweei Napier and AVellington being diverted to the Manawatu line, and I certainly do not think that that was a good investment. I approve of the policy that is beiig carried out at present of constructing some branch lines, becaujj the branch lines will act as feeders to the main line, and will render great assistance to the people in the country districts. For instance, there is the Raetihi line, where there is a tremendous amount of timber traffic. It goes through country which is almost level throughout. The same applies to the ODunake branch. It will be of great advantage to that district. Now a word or two in connection with the figures in the Public Works Statement —some of these figures I rattier object to. I see that this year's vote for public buildings is £666,000 in round fig.ires, and for roads £751,000. But that is not so bad as the expenditure last year. The expenditure on roads was £374,000, and on public buildings £445,000. I quite recognise that the present Minister of Public Works had not much control over the expenditure on buildings last year. There r/ere large commitments by previous Governments that had to be met, and, of course, it is absurd to say. when you have a building like the Post Office in AVellington that you should not complete it. The quicker it is. completed the quicker the country will get some return for the money, and the Minister is quite right in completing those works. But I cannot agree with the figures suggested for this year. I would like to see, until the country is opened up, at least double the amount spent on roads that is spent on public buildings. I am aware that some of this vote probably is for £chools, but there is no doubt that in some of the towns even the school buildings are too elaborate; ai least they are in my opinion. They, np doubt, will be wanted as big in * twenty years' time, but there could be economy in that direction at present. Mr Russell: You would not build them twice over in twenty years, would you ? Mr Pearce: 1 should think it quite easy to evolve a plan such as I have seen many people do with a private, house, <so that when they wanted to extend the house they could add to the building. There does not seem to be anything of that kind practised as regards school buildings, post offices, etc., in this country. What I say ap-j plies to the towns principally. In! the backblocks they nave no schools J at all very often. I hope that when we see the figures showing the actual expenditure next year in the Public! Works Statement we shall find a much larger expenditure on roads and bridges than on public buildings. I certainly think there ought to be. I recognise that it is impossible to spend the whole of the amounts that are voted now for roads and bridges before the 31st March next, but these figures in the Statement show the expenditure over the whole year, and tKat, of course, is the test. I certainly do not agree with £374,000 being spent on roads and £445,000 on public, buildings for the year. In connection with these road works and road grants, I think it has teen said and hoped all through the country, and probably in the House, that we should get some other system of! dealing with .these grants than the present one of the Minister of Public AYorks, or whoever does it, allocating these grants just where he pleases, and where he thinks he is right, and in, some cases where he knows little about, it. During the sittings of the Coun- j ties Conference here in "Wellington! eight or nine months ego a committee, of-which-1 was one, was set up. They] went into the matter thoroughly. They were men who are mostly chairmen of county cou.icils, who have had more experience in connection with road works than even the members of this House. I have before me the result of the committee's deliberations, and the report that it brought down in connection with this subject. lam going to read it to the House so that it may be put ia Hansard, because I largely aprree with this report, and I say that before very long we shall have something of this sort adopted in this country. The first suggestion was in connection with the subsidies —that the county councils should get a subsidy of 5s in the pound on all rates collected:. At the present time soiae districts get a subsidy, where there is a road board, up to IDs in the pound. Other districts only get 5s up to _ £2500 a year, anoythen they get nothing on the balance. The suggestion is that county, councils should get 5s in the pound subsidy, and that that should be as assistance to maintain the main roads in the country. It is looked on from that point 'of 'view, largely. They have to maintain the voads for the traffic from one end of the country to the other, and it is only a fair thin^g tht-tV the whole: country should

contribute towards their maintenance. Then, as regards grants aid, tms is what they suggested: ■ i ' 'That lor toe purpsse of distributing grants in aid. a board be set up for the , purpose of dividing the whole of the Dominion from time to time into the following districts: — "(1.) Districts (which may be called back districts) on account of the large amount of hew settlement going on in them, so that the roading of such districts -should receive grants in aid. "(2.) Districts (settled districts) where the work of the local body is mainly the maintenance Of * the roads, and which, therefore, should not receive grants in aid. Each district may be whole or portion of the area under the local body governing the district. "When such districts have been declared the Board shall have allocated to it the sum of money which Parliament annually votes for the purpose of assisting in making the roads of such back country districts. . "The Board having given consideration —(1) to the present condition of the roads, (2) tlie number of.. settlers requiring access, (3) the quality or the land, (4) the difficulty of formation and cost of completion- of such roads required, (o) the present facilities of access — shall allocate. such sums as the Board thinks fit, of-the sum at .their disposal to such local body under whose jurisdiction the district is, for the purpose of expenditure on such roads as are set out in the allocation." That means that this Board would divide the countries into districts where there are roads to be made, and those districts would get grants, and those districts only. The district® where only maintenance is required would not get grants, but they would get the 5s subsidy before mentioned. In my opinion that system would be a great improvement on the present system. "We know that at present every district agitates to get grants whether it is fairly entitled to grants -or- not. I think these grants should be for the making of roads and. not. for. maintenance. That would mean that this independent Board .would allocate the grants in the different districts. For instance^ if there ■wsuj, say, £100,000 or £200,000 available for roads and "bridges for the year m the way of grants, the Board should know the amount and then allocate a I fair amount to each district and to [ each road where most necessary. The Board would have the advice of the local bodies, the district engineer, and the member for the district; and the Board would allocate the grants, and then the money should be handed over Ito the County Council for expenditure. That would be a very much better system than the present haphazard one. 1 hope to see before very long some j system of this kind established. I am | very pleased to see a vote of £15,000 I -on the Estimates for the Opunake branch railway. I have been in this Mouse tor five or six years, and during •ail that time 31 have strenuously advocated the construction of that railway because I am ..perfectly certain that it is one oi the most necessary branch lines in the Dominion. In my opinion it will pay 10 per cent, on the cost of construction. It runs through a thickly populated district, and a district which exports a very large amount of produce. There is hardly a farm in the .district' of over 200 or 300 acres. The railway is sure to pay handsomely. 3 hope the line will be started.at once. There is such heavy traffic that at the present time the settlers are heavily taxed to keep up their roads, and the construction of this railway will relieve them of a large amount of that expenditure. I have in 'the past advocated the line joining the main line at. the township •of Normanby, because the principal part of the produce of the Waimate Plains -goes out of the Port of Patea. I have also advocated that the route of this and other lines should be determined by an i independent Commission. The member for Awama, when Prime Minister, promised me that fsuch a Commission would be set up. A'Commission was setup by the Mackenzie Government. That Commission took evidence .throughout the district. The; Commission consisted of the Ehgineer-in-Chief, Mr Holmes; Mr Burnett, the Chief Engineer of the! Mr Ballard, the Chief Surveyor in the Lands Department; and | Mr' Clifton, in rttoe Agricultural De■partmeht. so that, I think, it consisted of gentlemen who were fnjjy competent to decide which was the "best route. They -went carefully into Jthe matter, taking evidence all over the district and fixed the route of the "line from Te Roti to Opunake; and I am satisfied that the present com-mon-sense Ministry;! that we have will atiopt the route re-bmmended by their own engineers. &j far as I can see by the Public Works Statement, al-' though Sir Joseph Ward continually twits the Taranaki members that the route has not been decided, the Statement shows that :it has. It spys— "Since April last surveys to determine the most favorable route for the recently authorised branch line to Opunake have been in progress, and a line 1 has been located for. a distance of i about ten miles." I am pleased to <see tthis \-te put on, and I hope the Minister of Public Works will at once see that work is started •on the line, because if the first -ten miles are opened to IjCapuni that will relieve the settlers to a large extent. I want to say.a word or two with regard to the Mount Egmont branch railway, put 'in to provide metal for the local bodies of the district and the Railway "Department. The local bodies are very anxious that that railway should be pushed on. As a matter of fact th-** county I am chairman of lis (carting it* metal "120 miles. ■With this railway bringing the met.il within sa "distance of thirty or forty miles, the cost w'ouM be greatly ieduced. I was told that the ?! Ie .as to be completed last year. There was .only ab&ist two miies :«n'd -a half of the railway, and it should have been .completed -three or four years ago. -I think it is very bad manajrpmftot to feave the Bne so long (uncompleted. We have spent about £66j000 on this branch railway, and that amount of, money is lyi»g idle, because the line' is not completed to the reef where' the metal can 'be secured. When the line is finished it should be of great advantage, because the loea'l bodies can then get merfcal supplied oy -it. ,'" I , am surprised to see that a vote of I £15,000 is wanted. I thought it ■< o-i'd ! have -been completed for very -much less. The Hon. Mr Fraser: I hope to complete it, but there is a large hafolage plant to be obtained. Mr Pearce: I am pleased to heatthat is the reason, because if that is so it. ought to be working very soon, •and the local boards should save alarge amount of money on their metal when the line is completed.