The Press Wednesday, November 5, 1924. Public Works Expenditure.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18222, 5 November 1924, Page 8

The Press Wednesday, November 5, 1924. Public Works Expenditure.

It is more than fifty years since we commenced to point out the necessity for non-political control of the expenditure of public money on developmental works, and we have never seen any reason why we should change our opinion. Indeed, we can repeat to-day without any qualification what we said in an article on Vogel's Budget in 1870:—-"The provinces will bring pres"sure to bear on the Government to "have works undertaken on their be"half; and the Government will be "under a. perpetual inducement to "direct their operations, not as is best "for the colony, but as is most cal"dilated to secure public support. . . . "The only way to get thoroughly Tid "of this difficulty is to take the mat"ter out of the hands of the Govern"ment, whether general or provincial, "altogether." And in the article from which the above extract is taken we urged that the allocation of the developmental expenditure should be in the hands of "a Board of Commis"sioners acting under instructions from, "and solely responsible to, the General "Assembly. The Commissioners should "be men of standing and ability for "their special functions, but not connected with politics. That is the "essential point." It was not until nearly fifty years had passed that there began to appear amongst our politicians a readiness to support the reform we had advocated for so long, but we still wait for the translation of that approval into positive action. Last week the reform was discussed in the debate on the Public Works Statement as a result of some remarks by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Wilford is no more to blame than any other politician for being slow in recognising that the present method of allocating public works expenditure is unsound, and in criticising this method he made no attempt to exculpate himself or his party. "They were again "voting on Estimates," he said, "under a bad old system which no "party—he excused nobody —had dared to reform." The public ought .to be familiar by now with the method followed in allotting public works expenditure. Local bodies make representations to the Public Works Department, the Department makes recommendations to the Minister, the Minister and his officials go through the lists and draw up an enormous schedule of votes, Cabinet passes it after revision, and it is then submitted to the House. Where it is a question of new railway construction the Minister, as is shown in an appendix to the Public Works Statement, makes arrangements for reports by officers of his own and sometimes another Department. This is better than nothing, bnt it is no adequate substitute for the economic surveys which would form part of the work of a specially-appointed Board. Of 999 out of 1000 of tho items in the list submitted to the House, it is perfectly safe to say that 79 members know nothing about them. Except in respect of the larger works in which all the politicians are obliged to take some interest, no one knows anything about any item except the member in whose district the work is to be done. The Estimates are always agreed to, and it is obvious that the House has as little knowledge of the merits of the expenditure it authorises as the inhabitants of Jupiter. A more wrongheaded and unbusiness-like way of spending public money cannot be imagined. Tho official reply will be that the district officers of the Department satisfy themselves concerning the necessity for the works proposed, but it is far from clear that the district I officers are capable of judging of a local work as part of a national programme. The Minister of Public Works claimed, in the course of the debate, that "the present system was preferable, because a Minister could get "all the information he wanted com- " piled, and ought to be able to satisfy "tho public as to whether a railway "line was justified or not." It is no more than just to say that under the present Government political considerations have ceased to weigh with the Ministry, as its opponents have indeed admitted, in allocating the expenditure on public works, and that Mr Coates himself has brought such zeal and industry to his work that there would be nothing to say against the present system if it were not fundamentally unsound. His colleague, Mr Parr, said that "if the principles laid "down by the present Minister of "Public Works were adhered to there "would never arise the necessity for "setting up a Board of Commissioners" (our own proposal, which Mr Wilford had supported). Mr Coates is certainly doing very well, but it is impossible for him to obtain such a survey of developmental needs as could be obtained by an independent Board. And even if he could, ho would be exposed alike to charges of jiartiality and to political pressure from all quarters. In any case our politics ought not to be disturbed by the constant wrangling that accompanies the financing of the developmental expenditure of the State. The dignity of Par-

j liamc-nt, the comfort and efficiency of the Government, and the material interest of the country, all require the adoption of the reform -which we have been advocating.