PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14843, 8 December 1913, Page 6

PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURE.

A new note, and one which we were exceedingly glad to hear, was struck by more than one speaker in tho debate on the Ptiblic Works Statement' and Estimates in the House of Representatives on Friday night. This -was a note of revolt against the present method of allotting public money for the roads and bridges and thousand and ono things which make up tho general body of public works. It is a bad eys-tem—-its innate evils were pointed out as long ago as 1873, when the late Anthony Trollopo wrote his book upon New Zealand —but no attempt has been made to deal with it in a thoroughgoing fashion. It is destructive of the independence and dignity of members of Parliament, it embarrasses any vernment which shrinks from using it for party purposes, as the "Liberal" Administration used it, and it makes for the corruption of the public conscience. The public is familiar with the member who, on seeking re-election, advances, as his strongest claim for continued support, tho amount he has " got for the district." Hβ may wish to servo his country as a member of the National Assembly, but he is too often hampered by tho fact that a great section of bis constituents, accustomed for a generation to receiving grants and doles from the public purse, are inclined to make the measure of statesmanship the amount of success that attends tho work of "battling for the "district." The system which, thus degrades the member and the constituency,- is obviously an evil one, and would be hardly less evil even if it did not lond itself to the party uses of any party in power that chose so to use it. Mr Coates, of Kaipara, in denouncing tho whole system, spokoof the sheaves of letters and telegrams he has received from constituents concerning the earns voted for that electorate. Hβ. regards this as "humiliating," and for the protection of the Ministry and members he urged tho Minister to devise come new scheme. Another Ministerialist, the member for Mataura, spoke in much, tho same strain, and added an expression of his disappointment that •' practically nothing" has been done to abolish tho present state of affairs. Wo are glad to see this growing spirit of revolt against the system, even though is ia obviously unfair to blame the Minister for not having in less than a year accomplished what will be ono of tho greatest reforms, as it will bo one of the heaviest tasks, to which a Government could turn its hand. If the "Liberal" Party had not remained uninterruptedly in office for twonty-ono years—if there had been occasional changes of Government' —this bad system would have been abolished long ago. In hie Statement Mr Fraser indicated that he is going into the whole question during the recess, and we nnd believe that reform in this field will be ono of the next large undertakings of the present Ministry. Reform will bo opposed, of course, by the "Liberals." who owe almost more to this bad system than to any other single thing, but the reform will come. When the member is no longer merely tho local delegate, dependent in ao small measure upon the success with which he subordinates the national interest to local interest, and too often, through the operation of nat-

Ural selection, unfit for duty in a National Assembly; when Parliament is no longer a gigantic Road Board, more genuinely interested in the paltry greeds of trivial places, than in tho larger affairs of the nation as a whole; when the constituency, the member, and the Ministry, are entirely independent of each other; then we ehall have better politics and better Parliaments than we had between IS9I and 1912.

When we commonted last Friday on the statement in a "Liberal" contemporary that land tenure as an issue was no longer of any importance, our purpose "was to coax tho "Liberals," without appearing to do so, into a statement of their "policy." Wo are delighted to have been partially successful. Tho i&enos upon which the Opposition means to fight are, we are now told, "the attempt to gerrymander the electoral law (i.e., tho repeal of the Second Ballot Act which everyone was agreed <vas overdue), "tho Government's raid upon tho public estate" (i.e., the granting of tho freehold, which we wore told is no longer worth quarrelling about), "its extraordinary mismanagement of tho public finance." and various other alleged but non-ex-istont crinie-3. "Lots more 'practical issue* l ;.' " we aro told in conclusion, "can be named if tho Reformers want them." No doubt; wo can name them ourselves. For examplo: Mr Allen's "definite offer" of a "standing army" of "conscripts'" for eervico abroad; Mr Massey'e "deliberate robbery" of the J3tato by "'giving away" mineral rights; the Ma-ssey Governmert's introduction of the "hateful espionage regulations" which Mr Seddon invented; the "'Russian tyranny" of the Arbitration Act as exemplified in the clauses which have been law sinoo 1908; and, as our friends 6ay, "lots more." All the old canards, in fact, are to be allowed another fly. Or, to change tho figure, all the pathetic and battered old wooden guns are to be taken off the scrapheaps of memory once more when "Liberalism" shamblos into action.

In tho course of tho discussion in the House of Representatives on tho Public Works Statement the Hon. James Allen referred to the Culverden-Waiau railway, and chaffingly asked the member for Hurunui what he ever got from tho last Government. Poor Mr Forbes, who hnd just seen his leader neatly rolled in the dust, as it were, could think of nothing better to say in reply than: "A definite promise that it would be started." To this Mr Allen gently replied that "it was like tho definite promise of £250,000 a year to tho back-blocks settlers." The general public may have forgotten, but the back-biock settlers remember, that the Ward Government once announced that it would provide £1,000,000 in four yearly grants of £250,000 each for backblock roads. Of cdurse the promise was never meant to be kept and never was kept. The "definite promises" of the "Liberals" may onco have been looked upon as possibly worth their face value, but Mr Forbes must bo the only person in tho community who does not realise that a "Liberal" "promise" is nowadays no more than a joke. Perhaps, Bowever, he is not quite so simple-minded, as he is willing to appear to be.

There are many shrewd observations in the book by the lato Anthony Trollope which is.mentioned in a preceding article. After pointing out the grave weaknesses of that system of providing for public works which obtains to-day, Trollope mado an uncannily shrewd forecast of what was then a future twenty years away.

And then (he wrote) there is also the danger of there arising some Cagliostro in politics, some conjurer in statecraft who shall be clever enough to talk steady men off their legs by fine phrases, and to dazzle the world around him by new inventions in the management of affairs. Such men can invest democratic measures with tendencies purely conservative, can run into debt upon theories of the strictest , economy, and commingle patriotic principles with cosmopolitan practices in a manner very charming to weak minds. A statesman of this class is of necessity unscrupulous, and to a young community may bo ruinous. It is his hope to leap to great success by untried experiments— and being willing himself to run the risk of extermination if he fail, he does not hesitate to bind his'country to his own chariot-wheels as he rushes into infinite space. Such a Minister in a colony, should he get the power of th«* purse into his hands, will throw his millions about without any reference to the value of the property acquired. JTe will learn tho charm of spending with profusion,"and will almost "tench himself to measure the prosperity of the community which is subject to him, by the amount which it- owes.

This forecast of the rise of tho "Liberal" •Party is not so very miraculous, however : Trollope was simply reasoning from first principles.

Those "Liberals" who, without any very clear ideas on the subject, have been clamouring for a reduction of tho "crushing burden of taxation" which they placed Upon the bacna oi tl»e munity, have been rather badry given away by their leader. Sir Joseph Ward stated on Friday night that he would not support tho Government in its efforts to reduce taxation, and a pleasant littlo dialogue ensued:

The Hon. Jas. Allen directed attention to the statement just made by the Leader of tho Opposition "that he would not support the Government in its efforts to reduce taxation. ,.

Sir J. Ward: Not at present I said. Mr Allen: Well, it is quite satisfactory to mc, and I am glad that the country and his party knew it. Now they knew where they were. If the country wanted a decrease of taxation it was not going to get it from the Leader of the Opposition. Ho wanted to repeat that Sir J. Ward had said: "I won't, at the moment, support any decrease of taxation." Mr McCalhim: Quito right. Mr Allen said that if the Government brought down proposals to reduce taxation it would not bo supported by the Opposition. Sir J. Ward: You daren't do it. Mr Allen: We have dared a great many things, but if we propose to reduce taxation we will got no support from the Lender of the Opposition or the momber for Wairau. Sir J. Ward: You are pledged to do it. Mr Allen: It is a most delightful situation. Ho hoped .that before the end of the session Sir J. Ward would repeat his assurance. Xo doubt a few simple-minded supporters of tho Opposition will puzzle their poor heads as to where Sir JosepTl Ward really does stand on this question. Tho rest of the public will merely smile at the naive disclosure that he has no particular views, but is/ in any event, against the Government, and is certainly opposed to the redaction of taxation. Some time ago we explained that it grates on the nerves of an officer in the

Navy to hear his ship called "a boat," nnd"that he especially" dislikes to be asked what "boat" he is "on."' "What ship axe you in ?" is the correct way to put this "question. Mr Alan Burgoyne in his book. "What of the Navy?" which we reviewed on Saturday, emphasises this point. "After all," he says, "you don't live 'on' a house; you live 'in' a house, don't you?"

The same author gives some interesting information as to the various nicknames used in tho Service where, it would seem, nothing is known by its proper name. "Jack Tar" is unknown in the Navy; the sailor-man is a "Matloe"' or ''Flatfoot"; tho captain is ''the skipper" or "owner"; "tho commander (the official rnaid-of-all-work) is called everything under the sun, both by superiors and inferiors; most times it's something nasty, and frequently quite rude. He is also termed 'the bloke, , which is crisp and expressive."

The first lieutenant is "No. 1" on the quarter-deck and "Jemmy the One" among tho men. The doctor has a variety of appellations, "Sawbones," "Pills," and others, whilst the "SkyPilot and "Devil Dodger" require no explanation. As to the name given to the midshipmen—thov must never be called "middies"—we hardly like to transfer it to these chaste columns. We .may mention, however, in Nelson's time the uniform did not permit of pockets, and handkerchiefs wore lacking, Observing that not unnaturally tho young gentlemen of that day nought relief by using their sleeves, the illustrious commander, in order to stop tho practice, ordered three buttons to bo sewn on each sleeve, whero they are to be seen to this day. Wild horses shall not drag anything further from us beyond saying that the term which the naval hero applied to tho budulWg admirals of his day, when he rebuked them for this practice, has survived with tho buttons.