The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JUDY 8, 1911. EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7847, 8 July 1911, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JUDY 8, 1911. EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY

Wo return to Mr Massey this morning with preliminary homage to the perspicuity and souse of proportion which leads to “ Promotion of a Town Planning Scheme” finding placo among the reforms for which our friend is “ fio-hting.” How this platitudinous plank comes to be incorporated in ths party platform wo cannot even guess. Certainly town planning is not a pro jecc on which there can be any pus siblo cleavage between Government and Opposition. Indeed, there is a Town Planning Bill, the work of a Liberal member, already before the country, and tho Government is known to havo another in prep a ration. Clearly reformers are hard pressed when they push a scarecrow of this kind into the firing line. However, the matter has reference to local government, and mention of that subject brings us to another section of the platform—that in which the claim is made for extended powers of local government to rural districts by •< giving assured finance and thus making it unnecessary for them to depend to tho same extent as at present ” on Parliamentary grants. In discussing this point on Thursday evening Mr Massey was as expansive and as vague as a man could possibly be. The meaning of the words “to. the same extent as at present ” he left to tho imagination, and after giving them due consideration we can come to, no other conclusion than that they are utterly pointless as a guide to what the Opposition would propose todo. Leaving that phase of the mattes however, we have Mr Massey’s genera, denunciation of the system undei which Parliament votes the money foi public works, and, his claim that ox penditure in this direction should hs in tho hands of local bodies. The community has grown accustomed to beroe denunciation of, tho present system and to harrowing allegations of its degrading effects upon public business and the character of puhlio v men. Even after allowing a considerable margin for extravagance of expression it has always seemed to us that behind this fury there is a sound conception of public policy. At any rate, wo would not believe it difficult to prove that the roads and bridges member -is an intolerable nuisance in the Legislature, and that the time ol Parliament and Ministers might be devoted to more essential work than considering the condition of J am Tin Gully or the track to Mu-ddleumiti Yet it has to be remembered that tbs difficulty does not -rest in finding adjectives to condemn the existing system but in devising a working alternative. The proof of this may he seen in any newspaper article on the subject and in Mr Massey’s speech of Thursday. There is invariably a maximum of glibness about the thing condemned and a minimum of helpful suggestion as to the particular kind of reform that is necessary. Let us take Mr Massey’s latest comments. He tells us that the system we know is “ rotten.” Grant for the moment that dt is. In what manner does Mr Massey assist ns and what is the reform he is “ fighting for ” ? All he recommends is a comprehensive scheme of local government reform. Here we get no further forward. The Government also tells us that this is necessary. But what is tho reform to be, in detail? Since Mr Massey declines to toll us we are. entitled to , conclude that he has no ideas on the subject and is not sincere. There is nothing unfair in this, for we must insist that reform of local government in the direction he speaks of is a matter of detail, and that the problem of public works expenditure can only be discussed from the standpoint of some definite suggestions for controlling it. The trouble before us is that the money involved is public money taken from the taxpayers' pockets or raised by loan on their security. If we are to be told that this money should only be expended on the recommendation of and under tho control of local bodies elected by property-owners in rural districts, then we are brought face to face with a difficulty from which no cant about “ the degradation of Parliament” will save us. We have said that tho “rottenness” of the pro sent system might be conceded for the purposes of argument, but must now add that such “ rottenness ” is incomparably preferable to the state of affairs that would prevail in the rural districts if Mr Massey and his friends had their way. They would put into tho hands of a small section of the community a power over the public iurse and over Parliament itself that could bo used with disastrous effect. We can see no hope for tie proposal to hand public funds over to local bodies

in tho manner Mr, Massey suggests unless ho is prepared to advocate the election of these bodies on the same basis as Parliament itself is elected. On this point, the essential point, he is silent. And if reform on these lines s ere inaugurated wo question very much whether the evil spoken of would be even scotched. However, whether this bo right or wrong we are surely not going beyond the region of reasonable criticism in saying that tho main features of thoir proposed system of reform should be produced by tho advocates of immediate change. Unless they aro produced wo suggest that the invitation is not to assist in a salutary reform but to do something that would turn most districts into hotbeds of log-rolling and intrigue by interested property-owners and fasten upon the general taxpayer expenditure which should properly bo discharged by local effort.