The Dominion. TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1911. MINISTRATION & PUBLICITY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1188, 25 July 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1911. MINISTRATION & PUBLICITY.

It was reported the other day by cable that two officers in the 'New South Wales Public Works Department had been dismissed for accepting secret commissions, or bribes, from firms supplying goods or carrying out work for the Government. Their dismissal was the result of a report furnished by a licyal Commissionappointed to inquire into the administration and general supervision of the Department, and the affair appears to us to have some lessons for New Zealand. The Commission pointed out the great difficulty in proving the payment of a bribe in any dealings between a Government I and a private firm. Such a transaction takes place between two parties only, and they arc bound to deny it, while there are so many ways by which any eniry disclosing the fact can be avoided or concealed that an examination of the books of account is futile. The Commission, however, uncarthad a sufficient number of facts to raise more than a suspicion that two officers in particular had had corrupt dealings with private firms in spending the public's money. The evidence was considered by the Government, as by the Commission, strong enough to warrant the prompt dismissal of the two officials; and the Minister for Public Works has announced that he intend* taking some strong steps with regard to the people who have been paying secret commissions. . Now it seems to us that most New Zcalanders will be struck by the contrast between the action of the New South Wales Government and the characteristic attitude of the New Zealand Govern-' ment. Could anyone dare to hope that our Government, either to test a widespread suspicion or to investigate definite charges, would with any willingness appoint a Commission of Inquiry! Or, if driven to action against its will, would, if it could avoid doing so, appoint a Commission at all likely to make a searching investigation and furnish an honest and fearless report that would he given in full to the public i The answer to those questions can only be no.

The contrast between the- case in New South Wales and the New Zealand case turns, upon reflection, on the difference between any New South Wales Government's outlook on life and the outlook of the clique who have enjoyed the farming of our public Ul3 so long that they consider themselves, and almost arc-in fact, a dynastic oligarchy. In New South Wales, fortunately for thai State, changes of Government are frequent, and the Government of the day has a real incentive to preserve the public interest against corruption and intrigue in administration, since, quite apart from cthicil considerations, it is profitable to any Government in such circumstances to have the reputation of sinning only, when it sins at all, in its legislative policy. In New Zealand, on the other hand, the Government long ago shook down to a.group of firms and families. It has no incentive to welcome the open air ,of investigation, since it considers—or, rather, it has until just recently considered—that it possesses the fee simple of the Treasury and will never be disturbed in its reign. But it has a direct incentive to resist.; investigation, to make itself singular amongst tho Governments of the earth by treating as proper subjects for vilification and resistance everybody who asks for inquiry, since twenty years have so fused the interests of Ministers and the satel-

Lite firms-arid families that investiga-

tion on the lines of investigation in ether countries might involve in trouble not mere subordinate officials, but persons beloved of the Min-

istry and members of the Ministry

itself. It was only by prodigious efforts that public opinion forced inquiry into tho Taxing Department charges. Public opinion has not yet, but very soon will, we hope and be-

'.icvc, force inquiry into the Mokau lands scandal. Every resource of

political power and of slander were ranged against Mr. Hine in his fight for tho investigation of a serious political ulcer; at every stage the Government played for secrecy and 'the covcring-up of abuses; at the very last stage, when, despite the forces of the Government's hostile engineering, Mr.. Hine proved several of his charges beyond disputing, the Government drove its subservient

majority into a treatment of the offenders which, anywhere but in New

Zealand, would be considered a dis-

grace to the Legislature, but which, in New Zealand, was almost wonderfully severe; and even now we have Government supporters raging against the baseness, not of th-i corrupt legislators or the Government that fought for them, but against the member who dared to ■ expose the ulcer. The records of the press and Parliament are thick with scandals and the fierce fights of the Government against investigation; the public mind is heavy with knowledge of jobs and suspicion of other jobs. The opportunities for corrupt practices in New Zealand's conditions arc enormous; but what chance is there of investigation 1 In Australia the public enjoys the assurance that abuses in administration will bo exposed very quickly; what assurance can the New Zealand pub-"

lie have that its money is being

honestly spent when the Government treats all requests for honest investigation as wicked attempts to intrude on the private affairs of Ministers? To give one concrete instance, what assurance can the public have of honesty and efficiency when the Government, flagrantly and almost incredibly defiant of the practice of all other Governments, refuses even to allow Parliament to know anything whatever about the details of payments in connection with loan flotation oven years after the loans are floated?