THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1925. PUBLIC WORKS STATEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19124, 16 September 1925, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1925. PUBLIC WORKS STATEMENT.

The Public Works Statement presented yesterday is a sober and unpretentious record of a year's efforts accompanied by a programme for the succeeding twelve months. It contains nG startling declaration of policy. It could not very well do so. Since the beginning of his career as Minister, Mr. Coates has followed the policy he then defined. It does not change from year to year, for it is founded on certain principles making for continuity. The department was committed to a certain welldefined programme, and succeeding statements have consisted principally of accounts of the progress made. This one is true to type. Expenditure on work designed to improve communications, open up new country and develop the natural resources of tho Dominion is proceeding steadily. Last year a total sum of £8,143,235 was'voted for all purposes. Of this sum £6,258,952 was spent, £4,373,370 out of general account and £1,885,582 out of special accounts. For thi3 year appropriations amounting to £7,598,500 are proposed, £4,718,500 from general purposes account arid the balance from special funds. Railway construction absorbs £1,150,000, against £1,200,000 voted and £1,135,000 spent last year. Railways improvement calls for £820,000. The vote last year was £l ,225,000, bufc.the expenditure only £273,407. Lor additions to open lines £900,000 is proposed, | compared with £BOO,OOO appropriated and £742,922 expended last year. Expenditure on railways, in its various branches, thus represents the largest item on the. list. For the electric supply account £1,045,000 is asked, for telegraph extension £995,000, and for irrigation £IOO,OOO. Roads and bridges call for £689,500, compared with £854,853 voted last year and £606,723 expended. This item, as such, is a diminishing section of the accounts, but there is a special vote of £435,000 for main highways construction. Last year the sum of £504,570 was appropriated for this purpose. It is inevitable in a partly ? developed country like New Zealand that means of communication should receive the special attention signified by these figures. The sums set apart for roading, in particular, are no greater than the necessities of the case re-; quire. The only question is the manner of their utilisation. This, as is generally recognised, is in process of systematisatlbn as the main highways scheme is applied to the roading problem. The activities of the main highways organisation do not exhaust the requirements in road maintenance or construction. The local authorities still have their individual responsibilities, a fact to which several sections of the Statement bear witness. The Public Works Department exercises a large measure of supervision over the work, its interest being the degree in which it is called on to subsidise local effort. Aroused by the new conditions intensive motor traffic has created, the department is much, exercised over the surfacing and maintenance of country roadp. It expresses a desire to encourage permanent surfacing with bitumen or by tar-sealing, as being calculated to withstand pre-sent-day wear and iear much better than the old-fa3hioned water-bound macadam. Yet, according to the Statement, since tho wear and tear on these roads is less than on macadam, thus reducing the maintenance costs to the local 'authorities, it is proposed to pay a smaller subsidy on them, pro rata, than on ordinary macadam. If the Statement really means what it says, there is a decided contradiction. To reduce the proportionate subsidy is not the way to encourage.modern methods of surfacing, In any event, if the local body saves in maintenance charges, it pays more in interest on the original outlay when it lays down bitumen or tar-seals its roads. It is always a difficulty for many of these bodies to finance satisfactory construction. The department is not going to increase their enthusiasm by taking up this attitude over subsidies.., It is bound to arouse controversy and delay the making of good road 3. On the question of maintenance where subsidies are to be granted the Statement is on srunder ground. Local bodies must in future g : ve an assurance that adequate -©vision *•"* been made to maintain roads metalled with the assistance of the department. It is a reasonable demand that the expenditure should be so safeguarded. The local authorities must be prepared to do their full duty in conserving the roads in which their own and State funds are invested, not merely expended. A fair measure of permanency is essential, and the department is quite justified in demanding it.

There is another direction in which the Statement says State expenditure is fenced round with strict safeguards, and that is tho repair of flood damage. The department, it is said, should not be regarded as subsidising all work needed to repair the ravages, of flood waters. It first requires to be satisfied that tha local body affected really needs help, that it has not contributed to the damage by neglect of precautions, and that no flaw in road or bridge led to flood disaster. This is o*dy common sense. It is suggested, however, that local authorities may be called upon to establish special emergency funds to meet such a situation as devastation by flood. This, it appears, will have to be done by reserving a portion of the annual revenue by laying by part of the year's income against a rainy day. It sounds well in theory. The difficulty is that few local authorities, especially in districts on which floods are most likely to descend, have any,

even the smallest, margin of revenue after meeting all ordinary liabilities, to use as a reserve or for any other purpose. They will inevitably resist the proposal, not necessarily because they deny its soundness, but because, as they will protest, they have not the money at their command. Certainly something should be done about these recurring floods and the trouble they bring. What must be asked is whether accepting damage as inevitable and providing for repair is a statesmanlike way of meeting the situation. The increase in frequency, and the threat of worse to follow, surely calls for a comprehensive survey to discover whether systematic flood protection is not possible and necessary. The need for it is beginning to obtrude itself. The Public Works Department could very well consider undertaking the task. It has the technical staff, and is concerned because its funds are called upon when assistance is needed. To safeguard work already done is not beyond the scope of its duties, even if it is primarily concerned with new work. It should be concerned to protect as well as to aehievo in the manner the Statement says it desires to do.