DREAM CITY.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 1012, 10 May 1917, Page 6

DREAM CITY.

CANBERRA MUDDLE. INEFFICIENCY AND WASTE. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT. A summary of the third report of I Mr Wilfred Blackct, K.C., on the expenditure at the Federal capital was ,\ss\aciV vn Melbourne las\ week. Mr Blackct says that it is a matter of the utmost difficulty to discover, in the majority of cases, what the cost of any work really was, and it was therefore difficult to say in any particular case whether there had been excessive cost or defective bookkeeping in recording the expenditure. Some cases of waste were beyond question, says the Sydney "Sun."

Certain evidence appeared to indicate that works were, in some cases at least, carried out in a hap hazard manner. A notable case was that of the power-house. At first the intention was that it should be a temporary Work. Then a permanent structure was intended with galvanised walls. After some progress it occurred to Colonel Owen that brick Avails would be preferable. Then it was found that the bricks, although available, was not suitable, and once more the design was changed. Another illustration was the hospital, and yet another was the Cotter dam. Jt was intended at first that the dam should be only 90ft high, but when it was well on its way towards completion a sudden discovery was made that to raise it 10ft higher would impound 560,000,000 gallons more-water.

Workmen's Comfort. Mr Blackct continues that, in his opinion, tens of thousands of pounds would have been saved if from the outset there had been proper consideration for the comfort of the workmen. If comfortable cottages had been available, efficient workmen would have been anxious to go there, and there would have been no need for the engagement of 107 men from Melbourne, and the return of 113, with fares paid, because of inefficiency. The want of knowledge of ollicers as to brickmaking and kiln building added about 200 per cent, to the necessary cost of the brickworks; and the other matter of change in design must have involved double cost of items in many cases. Then, too, there were the cases in respect of large items where many thousands of pounds were shown in excess of any conceivable cost. Defective bookkeeping might have been the real explanation of some items, but in only two cases were items stated at less than reasonable cost, and these, together, were not more than £104,000. Mr Blackct expressed the opinion that £30,000 of that cost had been neither explained nor justified. Mr Hiscock had' estimated £50,000 as having been neither explained nor justified. The high cost was attributed by the officers to freights and cost of labour. Making the allowances slated for those causes, and also for the waste of stores, there was still an outstanding excess of cost for which no necessary cause had been alleged. Irregular Book Costs.

Dealing with the estimated values of buildings and the costs shown in the account books, Mr Blacket said that the differences were so great that any nice calculation of reasonable cost was unnecessary. Taking the whole of the buildings together, exclusive of- the power-house, Mr Hiscock, estimated the reasonable cost at £48,408, after taking into account the necessarily greater cost of buildings at Canberra, as compared with those at Melbourne or Sydney. Their cost in the books, moreover, stood at £104,829, to which administrative charges, estimated at 11 per cent, had to be added, bringing the total cost to £110,304.

Going into the items separately Mr Blacket pointed out that the bachelor quarters at Acton stood in the books at £1405, whereas their value was probably £2405. The Recreation Hall at Canberra was valued in the books at £23, but, according to Mr Hiscock, it was worth £175. Another erroneous expenditure item was "Administrative block and quarters, £15.330." Mr Hiscock valued this building at £3450. "Buildings for workshops, etc., £14,403," was another inexplicable item. The only buildings that could be included under it were the machine shop and other buildings in the power-house, leaving a deficiency of £8341. Whether this item was an evidence of negligent bookkeeping or of waste it was impossible to determine. Hospital Payments.

Another remarkable item, the Commissioner said, was the Administrators' residence at Acton. The original estimate was £3900; its debit of cost was £0350. Mr Hiscock valued it at £2BOO. Here again, possibly, part of the difference might be accounted for by bad bookkeeping. The married officers' quarters stood at £7llß, but their cost, according to Mr Rolland, the architect under whose supervision they were built, was £9502. They were valued by Mr Hiscock at £SOOO. The power house building was valued by Mr Hiscock at £20,125, but its cost was £39,590. This was a case where Mr Hiscock had a close guide as to value, for as a member of a tramway trust he had knowledge of the cost of a similar building. The cost of'the power house was excessive. The hospital at Canberra cost £7915, and it was valued at £2750. From the £7915 had to be deducted £lO for subscription to the Queanbeyan Hospital; until the completion of the Canberra Hospital a subsidy of £2OO a year was paid to the Queanbeyan Hospital, but after the completion of the Canberra Hospital this amount of £2OO was still paid. It was debited to "Hospital Canberra erection." Two authority books each showed the Minister's authority for the payment of £IOO a year "payable quarterly," but lower down on each page was a further ; authority for the payment of £IOO a I year to the same hospital "payable monthly." The Commissioner said

he "did not ascertain the reason for this very remarkable arrangement." Unreliable Figures. Mr Blacket went into costs of other buildings at the Federal capital, and said that he had the utmost diiiicnlty in ascertaining whether the costs of works and buildings had been excessive, as it was "impossible to rely upon the figures or matters stated in the books." As to the expenditure of £202,500 at Duntroon, he said "every effort to obtain particulars as to the cost of any one work, or building, included in that total has failed hopelessly." After describing the conditions under which workmen and their families were granted the privilege of occupying allotments at 1/- a week each to build their homes on, Mr Blacket described the results as follows:—"So to-day, mar the power-house and the brickworks, within the area of the Federal City, there are at each place two rows of unsightly, inconvenient huts, constructed of galvanised iron, hessian, boxboards, canvas, and any other material, that can be obtained cheaply. These places afford no protection from the heal of summer, nor from the cold, sometimes intense, cold of winter, and can hardly be dignified with the name of dwellings. They have no privacy, for there are no dividing fences or walls between each. I am assured that these settlements are regularly inspected, and that (-very prccaucaulion is taken against infectious diseases, but the conditions are prohibitive of comfort and destructive to modesty, and the huts arc not lit for residence for workmen and their families. The conditions under which these workmen and their families live are discreditable to the officers who permitted and induced such conditions. Some of the workmen, rather than live at Canberra, live at Qncanbeyan. eight miles away, and obtain an extra allowance in wages for so doing, because their postal address is more than six miles from where they work. They go backwards and forwards on their i bicycles daily, and I assume that 10 to 20 miles a day on a bicycle would somewhat detract from ttie efficiency of a labourer, although this exertion entitles him to an increased wage."