UNRELIABLE PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13424, 26 October 1905, Page 10

UNRELIABLE PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.

TO THE EDITOR. ' Sie,—My attention has been called to the return lately presented to Parliament of what purport,? to bo the railway expenditure in tho North and South Islands of New Zealand during the last fivo years. This return was presented on the motion of Mr D-iYcy, M.H.K. for Christohurch, and its apparent object was to justify Mr Seddon in Ihe statements he made recently at Dargaville and Whangarei respecting expenditure on tho railways in the North and South Islands. When speaking in those towns ho said that, whatever might have been done in the past, during tho then 11 years of his Premiership £1,639,326 had been expended on railways in the North Island, and only £1,370,393 in the South Island,—total for both islands, £3,009,719. This shows £265,933 more in the North than in the South Immediately on this statement being published I pointed out that the railway reports shwvcd that during this period £2.8*9,412 had been spent in the North Island, nnd £3.557,046 in the South Island,—total for both islands, £6.406.488 Tims we see that the Railway Department says that the expenditure in the South Island was £707,601 more than in the North Island. Which arc. we to believe?

Now we liavc tho return asked for by Mr Davcy, i1.11.1t, for Christohurch, which gives a third version, and, if it, proves anv-thi.-ij, proves that neither of the above statements is true. These varied statements now stand thus: — North .South lsiand. Island. Totals. £. £ £ Statement of tho Right Hon. the Premier oi expenditure during 11 years .. 1,039,320 1,370,303 3,009,719 Statement of Sir Joseph Ward * in Railway reports .. .. 2,543,442 3,537,0(0 G,100,488 Statement of Mr .Davey's return for the last five (5) years only 2,182,740 2,247.029 4,430,369 Statement of Railway Department for the same five

(5) years.. ..2,239.232 3,210,180 5,449,432 It will bo seen that the return presented to Parliament on tho motion of Mr Davov snows that, m the last five vears only, the railway expenditure was ji545,414 in the North and £877.226 in the South Island, more than the llighfc Hon. 11. J. Seddon, Premier, twice publicly told the electors it- was for the whole 11 years of his Premiership. The statement of the railway reports for the same five vcars is that tiie expenditure in tho North was £56,512, and in the South £962,551, or a total of £1,019,063 more than Mr Davey's return shows it to have been. Over" a million in five years is a pretty stiff difference in the two. statements of tho expenditure of our Railway Department, and I tlmik it ought for. ever to discredit the Seddon Administration.- Again, 1 ask, which of these three statements are we to behove? For-my own part, I do not behove cither, but- have -long been convinced that the railway .accounts do not gi\o information to the public so much as conceal the real state of things, But, Sir, the most serious aspect of this affair is that it proves conclusively that our audit system is utterly defective; for here we have the clearest possible preof that wo cunot trust oil her ihe platform statement'; of the Premier, lucked bv the Minister of Public Works, nor the Minister of Kail ways, nor a return presented to Parliament by order of the Government, for it. is clear that they each give a different version of the amouut spent on our railways during the last few years; and it is also certain that, the accounts of the Pubhc Works as also of the Railway Department must, or ought to, have passj'rl through the Audit Office.

To nie it is incredible that our public accounts pan he in such a state as to be capable of being manipulated in such a manner as to be made to say anvthing the Government pleases. Coupled 'with the "voucher incident." it completely destroys all faith in our audit system. What kind of nil audit can it be? "Certainly, not what we ou?ht to have in a British colony like N<nv Zealand,

I trust, Sir, that nolhing I have said in this letter or in the articles published in the New Zealand Herald of tho 9th and 11th inst. will he construed- into a desire my part to work against the south: quite ilie contrary. My earnest wish is tint all my feMow colonists could see as clearlv as I see that.our host- individual interests l'n in working unitedly for the advancement of New Zealand, and not merely for our own particular districts.—l am, etc., Auckland, Ori. 13. Samuel Vaile.

MR GILFEDDER'S MISREPRESENTATIONS. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—At the close of Mr Gilfedder's address at lSannoekbuin on tho 26th inst., he mentioned that he was in favour of promoting commerce, etc., with other countries, and immediately afterwards road a resolution proposed by Sir Joseph Ward— " That the Standing Orders be suspended, and that a committee be appointed of 19 members to inquire into and report as to the best means of promoting the commerce of the colony, and the sale of the colony's produce in markets other than those at present obtainable," ctc. Mr Gilfedder then commented on some of Ilie names of those who voted against this motion—viz., Mr ' Aitken, who was, lie said, ti Tory; Mr Dutliie,- a good old Tory; and. then read Wm. Fraser. Now. Sir, why could not- Mr Gilfedcler have been honest in this matter, and stated that it was against t.ho suspension of Standing Order No. 218 .that these members voted? They wanted the committee to remain 10 members; the Government wanted if increased to 19, and had to move t.lie suspension of the Standing Order to increase it. hence tho division. Any elector can sec for himself by turning up Hansard, vol. 1, page 20. Mr Massey, Leader of lhe_ Opposition, had; cause to refer to this jn Hansard, vol. 14, pages 585-556. as a. Liberal newspaper did.. What Mr Gilfodder has done - misrepresents the facts.—l am, etc., C. Rae. Bannoekburn, October 20.