THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1922. PARTIES AND PATRONAGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18244, 10 November 1922, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1922. PARTIES AND PATRONAGE.

Now that the election campaign is fully under way it is perhaps natural that there should bo a tendency among partizans of a certain type to indulge in the computation of loaves and fishes. It is temptingly easy for the electors to be told quietly that the district would bo better treated in the expenditure of public money if it returned a Government candidate. It is equally easy to allege, in the endeavour to discredit the Government generally, that those constituencies which consistently return supporters of the Government are in fact better treated than others which rank as strongholds of the Opposition. The contention has already been heard in several parts of New Zealand. It does not matter whether it has been made for or against Government candidates. The question is one which should be examined impartially on the facts. If there is indeed a tendency to allow the allocation of money to go. by favour rather than by demonstrable needs, it is not to the credit of public life in New Zealand. This is a young country, with many wants calling aloud for attention by the Legislature. There is no excuse for any method of choice other than the urgency of the cases and the soundness of the investment of public funds assessed in the light of accession to general prosperity. It is not proved that many of these claims have been made by, or officially on behalf of, any candidate. The old topic is being revived none the less, and in the circumstances there need be no hesitation in detailing the record of the present Government as affecting the allocation* of public expenditure and the general question of patronage. To approach the subject in general j terms it must be remembered that when the historic, and particularly unfortunate, phraße " spoils to the victor" was used, it was not tbiaf Government which was in It was not the victor wbfcS enunciated that vicious sensafent. When it did come one of its earliest was to adnujKster the death-blow to the most

Obnoxious form of patronage with which this country Vao ever afflicted. It established the Public Servi.ce

Commissionership. That institution is far from perfeot. It does not control all the servants of the State. Yet it does rule the staffs of the departments in which comfortable sinecures could most easily be established, and with its work organised, the other departments have fallen into line. An ambitious parent with a son to start in life does not now find it profitable to enlist on his behalf the services of a friendly member, or to make himself useful in some capacity or other to a Minister. An effective setback was given to the nepotism which flourished unashamed under previous Administrations. It is the one action of the . Government which some of its opponents find hardest to.forgive. There is girding at it in Parliament to this day, with the undertone of regret for the passing of an ugly and discreditable phase of public lite very poorly concealed. The next direction in which this Government has to its credit something of practical benefit to the Dominion, yet something for which it has been rewarded with rancorous abuse by its opponents, is in the allocation of expenditure upon public works. The making of railway authorisations and the granting of subsidies for roads and bridges is beiag steadily but surely placed on a different footing. To take railways alone, any fair-minded man might well be asked to contemplate each month the returns of railway revenue and expenditure, study the figures under " South Island main lines and branches," and then be asked if ho did not wish that the plan adopted by the present Minister

: or Public Works had been evolved

many years ago. Some parts of the South Island might have been without certain branch lines, but the monthly balance might not have remained so persistently on the wrong side.

Mention of the South Island recalls that this argument about allocation of money on public works has cropped up in Westland. It is a little unfair of Government supporters if they have been suggesting that Westland is not now receiving the attention it did, for, without wishing to turn over the dry bones of the dead past, it may be remarked that discreet opponents of this Government will say as little as possible about Westland when discussing the apportionment of public works by favour. The present facts are that the Public Works Department proposes to deal with its existing railway commitments in the order in which they will best repay completion. The Minister is pledged not to launch any new ventures until

full inquiry has been made into the capital cost of the line, the pros-

pects of settlement, the probable revenue and working expenses, and

the chances of interest and sinking fund being earned from the outset. In fact, as those who regret other days and other methods are realising with a mixture of sorrow and indignation, he proposes to treat public works as coldly, jjracrtically

and unemotionally as if they were ordinary private business concerns. With roads and bridges he is equally forgetful of the old tradition. Before voting money he inquires what prospect there is of its being expended promptly and practically by the local body concerned. Such differently-constituted members as Mr. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Masters, member for Stratford, and the Hon. A. T. Ngata, member for Eastern Maori, have given public recognition in Parliament to his fair-mindedness in doing these things. There is still ; one point where the energetic member may serve his district. The Minister explained in a debate in 1920 that ho would always" hear representations from members of any party or political colour, as to the requirements of their districts. If he found that his other information was not adequate, that a district offered opportunities of .public expenditure on sound lines which had not previously been shown him, he would be glad to have and utilise the suggestions. The business methods of the department do not therefore inhibit legitimate activity on the part of a member, and do not rob his constituents of the right to call him to account for proved inertia. So much the member for Nelson, Mr. Atmore, was told very out-spokenly in 1920, when he failed to interview the Minister before the Estimates were published, and then in the subsequent debate querulously complained that his district was neglected because of his-political views. The evidence all points one way. Indiscreet supporters or splenetic opponents of the Government notwithstanding, despite the elaborate calculations and ponderous propaganda of Canterbury and Central Progress Leagues, this Government has earned a reputation for discouraging patronage and distributing expenditure with generally even-handed justice.