The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1913. MINISTER’S REPLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 7326, 27 May 1913, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1913. MINISTER’S REPLY.

The position of the Minister for Public Works is not a happy one just now - . Faced with the necessity for economy in view of the present high rate of interest on loans and the tightness of money, Hon. Mr Fraser has met his task with a courage equalled by few Ministers who have held his onerous position in the history of this Dominion. Mr Fraser has been firm in his refusals,' and conscientious in his explanation's. He lias succeeded in economising to a large extent; yet he has a magnificent record to show, as Mr MacDonald, late Minister for Public Yorks in the Mackenzie Ministry, has been learning to his cost. Mr MacDonald has been very plentiful in his criticisms of Mr Fraser, and he has not been very tolerant or accurate in his methods. The Minister for Public Works has soon lit to reply to Mr MacDonald, and has given the following statement of the actual position. Ho says “Mr MacDonald begins his criticism of my administration of .the Public Works Department with a plaintive whine as to my treatment of his district, and especially as to the railway from .Gisborne to iNapior. The amount appropriated for the line in last year’s Estimates was C15,0()0, and I have spent ,C15,(>77 to March 111 on that particular portion, and incurred liabilities amounting to £3115. What a shocking instance of ingratitude on his part ! As to the Hue to Moiu, it is being pushed' on with all reasonable sliced, and is nearly completed. To have extended the line Veyotid Motu Would have linen impossible, us it has not been authorised, but the road from .Motu to Opotiki is making good progress and will give .nv.'jiloymeiit to many mien during the winter. Mr MacDonald proceeds to say that in 'March last year there were 10,201) men employed on the Government railway and road works, whereas the number has now been reduced to llJOd. It is a pity that he should

indulge in such ilights of imagination. 'J he official figures for .March of last year are 776.5, not 10,200, and for March of this year 4000, not 4000. This difference is partly accounted for by the fact that I have encouraged the local bodies to do more of the road work, and have also lot more contracts, and also that I realised that it was necessary to keep both work and money to provide for employment during the winter months when little or no work is going on on tlio farms. Moreover, I.don’t think that a large army of co-operative workers is any evidence of prosperity. Let us see now what has been done in regard to roads, railways, and bridges from April 1, 15)12, to .March 31, 1913. The sum of £429,253 has been 1 expended on the construction of roads and bridges, and £42,24-8 on the maintenance of main roads, making a total of £471,501. On railways .during the period there has been expended £6B-1,196. On eight out of the twenty-seven different lines under construction I have actually expended more than the appropriations. It may surprise Mr MacDonald to learn that the total expenditure of votes under my control in the Public Works Department for the year ending March 31, 1913, amounted to £1,908,671. I .distinctly stated to the House that the appropriations I was asking for wore intended to carry mo on till the new Estimates were framed, say, in October, 1913, and that statement will be fulfilled. Mr MacDonald has been particularly rash' in his criticism of the financial arrangements that have been made or left unmade. He happens to. be, wrong in every instance. Our arrangements have certainly not been of the slip shod character of our predecessors, nor have wo had occasion t« pledge every asset wo possessjd, as our predecessors had to do. Their fate might easily have been ours had 1 wo followed their example of spending money before we were sure of receiving the wherewith to defray such expenditure. Mr MacDonald wiil learn all about this when Parliament ,n:cets. As to our inability to lend t as we should have liked to hgvedone to local bodies and others, I have alroady publicly staled that the late Government committed itself 'to granting loans amounting to £678,900, and left £17,000 pay these loans with. They received during 1911-12 £1,500,000 from the Post Office for their State Guaranteed Advances Department to lend out again, and we received during 1912-13 only £500,000 front, that source, owing to the excess of withdrawals over deposits. Is it any wonder that we were unable to comply with the requests for loans ? Mr MacDonald says that there was no necessity for the curtailment of expenditure, as the country was very prosperous. Is he not ignoring the fact that wo have to go abroad for our loans, and that during all this Balkan war trouble money was dear and difficult to obtain ? AVhy, even Australia had to pay 6 per cent, for its loans. In conclusion, let. mo say that I have never doubted yur ability to meet ov.r engagements, but I have persistently declined, and properly so, 1 think, to make promises for next year till I know what amount of funds would ho available for expenditure.”