GRANTS TO LOCAL BODIES.

Waikato Argus, Volume XV, Issue 6045, 19 September 1903, Page 2

GRANTS TO LOCAL BODIES.

In the course of a de'iate on the Imprest Supply Bill on the 28th August Mr Lang -mid :—My object in rising was on account of some remarks made by the Minister for Public Works and an interj ci ion by the Premier. The Minister for Public Works said something to the effect that local bodies did not apply to have certain sums authorised.

The Hon. Mr Hall-Jones : They received authority to expend £150,000, and the amount was not applied for at the 31st March.

Mr Lang : I feel sure that that does not apply to my district ; aud if the districts that do not want their grants do not apply I hope the Minister will bear in mind that other districts are anxious to get them, because we shall take every giant that is put on the estimates. First; of all, there is great trouble to get votes on the estimates, and then it is exceedingly troublesome to get them authorised. When the member for Waikouaiti was speaking, the Premier asked if the local body he was referriug to was the Raglan County Council. I do not know what the Premier was referring to, but before I Bit down I shall refer to one or more oases ic that county with the view of ascertaining if it was the one the Premier alluded to. The Hon. Mr Hall-Jones : You know the ease I refer to.

Mr Lang : No, Ido not. Ido not nee why the Minister should object to tell me. If it was a case in the Raglan County, then I could meet it.

The Hon. Mr Hall-Jones : They overspent the authority. Mr Lmg : What road was it for ? The Hon. Mr HallJoneß: I cannot call it to mind now.

Mr Laug : As far as the question of the sums not being authorised is concerned, I hava known cases of local bodies in the Auckland District offering t) finance the matter for the Government, if they were not sufficiently in fuuda to pay the money, they have beep so anxious to get the money expended in the summer time, which is the most suitable period to do it. With ' reference to the remarks of the Premier and the Minister for Public Works that the local bodies do not expend the grants eut.sf tctorily, 1 would inform them that the late Sir John McKenzie told me once that he was particularly pleased with the way the local bodies spent the money granted to them, and he mentioned the Raglan County Council as one ot the foremost in that respect. (Mr Conradi was then County Engineer.) As far as the expenditure in different districts is concerned, lam going to move ( -v a return showing the amount appropriated to each electoral district for .public works throughout the colony, and also the amount expended, and I hope the Government will not refuse to grant it. I can expain why some of these sums appearing on the estimates are not expended. The Government from time to time vote certain sumß for bridges. Now, suppose, for instance, a bridge is estimated to cost £IOOO, the Government very often put on the estimates a Bum of £SOO, aud the Bame remark applies to wharves ; and it has occurred more than once in my electorate that the local authority wanted to start a bridge or a wharf, but with such a small sum voted it is impossible to do anything. It is vo'ed year alter year, and probably eventually they increase the amount, and the looal body is enabled to build the bridge or wharf required. The bridges at Hamilton and Cambridge are casps in point, and there are also other bridges similarly situated. But to return now to the case of tho Raglan County, there is one very clear case there. I refer to the Opotoru Bridge When the Minister of Lands first made a trip through my electorate he met a deputation at Raglan, and he promised that the Government would give £1 for £1 for the erection of this bridge. The local body carried out their part of the agreement; they took a poll for the loin, and the proposal was carried for the money required for the work. Then the Government surveyor made an estimate and plan of tho work required, and every thing was done on the part of the local body. Then I wrote, on March 24th, to the Minister of Lands, reminding him of his promise, and asking him to start the work as soon as possihle, because the settlers were anxious to take their milk to the -factory. I sot a reply, part of which I will read to the House. The Minister says :—' In reply, I beg to state that tho promise made to the deputation that the Government} would contribute £1 for £1 towards the cost of this work holds good. Instructions have already been issued to the Road Surveyor and work will be commenced in a very short time.' That was in May last ; and what is the position of affairs now ? When I wrote to the Department not very long ago about this matter I was informed that the vote had lapsed, and would have to be revoted ; so that the dißiioot promise made tha.t this bridge should be erec'od * in a verj short time ' has been broken, and the amount will have to be revoted, thouuh in the Minister's reply to my letter of the 24th March last he says it will be started in n short time. I hope the Government will place a sufficient sum on the estima'es to carry out their part of the agreement, and that the work will be started without further delay. With reference to the Waimai - Waioaaro - Nearuawahia Koad, which the Ministers said he objected to because the local body overspent that amount, I was present when tlie Minister of Lands received the deputation at Waingaro. The Hon. Mr Hall-Jones : £1,500 was voted, and they spent £3,000 Mr Lang : I am very glad the honourable gentleman has mentioned that, because it gives me au opportunity of explaining it. I was present when the Minister of Lands met the settleis, and they expressed their wants to him, and the Minister of Lands was surprised at their moderation ; he thought they ought to ask for a larger amount, aud they said it was £3,000 they asked for—£l,soo to be expended the first year and £1,500 the next year. The Minister for Public Works has just interjected that the amount was £1,500. I will draw his attention to the appropriation—l quote from the appropriations for 1901 : ' Wai-mai-Waingaro-Ngcruawahia (£1,243, £1 for £l, on account of £3,000), £1,500.' That is clear enough. Then you come to the next year, and it is still put in very much the same words : ' £3,000, £1 for £l, £1,500 allocated.' It was the intention of the Minister of Lands to give the district £3.000, £1 for £1 ; and I say that if the Government do not carry out that promise it will bis a distinct breach of faith with the settlers. The Minister for Public Works says that there is no record of the promise ; but I will ask the Minister of Lands across the floor of the House it it was not a fact, when the settlers met him, that he made a distinct promise of £1 for £1 up to £3,000. Am I not Btatiug what is correut ? The Hon. Mr Duncan (Minister of Lands).—No. I We haveaEked five gentlemen who were piescnt, and they are nlear that Mr Lang's statement is correct. Ed. W.A.] Mr Lang: Well, there were a great many settlers in the room at the time the promise was made who can bear me out that what I say is correct, I was there, as the Minister knows, and that was the promise made at the time. Then, again, about the non-expenditure of other grantsj I accuse the Government of distinctly breaking faith with the back-block settlers in putting them on the land, and loading the land f r making roads, and then not carrying out their promises to make them. Many settlers have been on their land lor yeariand have not got roads. I am not going to blame the Minister of Lands in the cases I am now mentioning, because he cannot get the money to do it; but he knows that what I am naying is correct, that settlers are in that unfortunate position ; and he would help them if he

could, but he has not the money given him by the Treasurer with which to do it, and it is an impossibility unless the money is voted. Another thiDg is the Bmall amount that is spent of money that is voted. 1 maintain that the whole amount should be expended which appears on the Estimates. One word about telephones and public buildings. Some members have been accused of asking for certain public works in their districts for buildings or telephones, and we are looked upon as inconsistent when we say there has beeu any extravagance in any shape in connection with the public works. I maintain that under the Estimates a cenuin amount is provided for different purposes, aud every electorate in the colony is entitled to its fair share according to its requirements ; and there is nothing inconsistent iu ask'ng for a public building in a district, even if we disapprove of extravagance in certain parts of the colony. In my own case the Postmaster-General may say I applied for a post-office at Cambridge. But why should not a post-office be erected at Cambridge in the sime way as in many places about Wellington that wo know of 7 lam sure the PostmasterGeneral will look at the thing fairly, and when a town deserves it he will treat it according to its requirements ; and that is all lam asking for. lam not asking for any favour; but Ido ask that my electorate, as regards public buildings or the extension of telephones, should be treated like electorates in other parts of the oolony. What we complain of more than anything ehe is this : That when the expenditure is being cut down it is being cut down iu the Departments that require more than any O'hera —that is to say, iu the matter of roads and bridges. There is not one member of this House, whether he represents a town or a coun* try constituency, that will cot admit that the hardships the settlers in the back blocks have to endure are almost past bearing. If ic were not that there is a good piospect before settlers—if it were not that prices are good, aud that they can look to the future for the chance of making a home for themselves—many of those settlers would leave their laud in disgust, and probably go to another colony.