PUBLIC WORKS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXI, Issue 9851, 1 November 1924, Page 5

PUBLIC WORKS

DISCUSSION ON ESTIMATES,

SUGGESTED BOARD OF EXPERTS

COMPLAINTS OF UNFAIR TREATMENT OF CANTERBURY:

WELLINGTON, Oct. 31

On tlie motion to go into committee on tho Public Works Estimates Mr McCombs complained that through the new system of pooling development funds for hydro-electric schemes, Canterbury was being robbed for the benefit of tho North Island. The Coleridge scheme was penalised in the interests of the northern enterprises. Mr Wilford reaffirmed his belief that tho allocation- of grants for roads, bridges and other public works should be in the hands of an expert board of business men outside the Government service free from political influence. He complained of an undue proportion of Public Works expenditure in North Auckland as compared with other parts of New Zealand. The i ail ways should be run as business concerns on strictly business lines. The main trunk railway connection from Invercargill to Auckland should be completed. Mr Wilford complained that the Mangaliao hydroelectric scheme was too expensive and that work should be undertaken on tlie Lake Waikaremoana scheme. Something more should be done to provide additional light-houses around tho coasts, some portions whereof were urgently needed as a means of warning mariners. Motor competition ought to be met by the adoption of methods, by which railways could obviate the present disastrous effects of motor competition. Mr Isitt supported the plea for a business board to” 1 deal with the Public Works expenditure and agreed with Mr McOombs that the Coleridge hydro-electric scheme was being unfairly treated. J.t was a pioneer scheme and the loan raised for it was at 4 per cent. Then other schemes were set going hut the money therefore cost 5V and 6 per cent. Now all the funds were pooled, which meant that Lake Coleridge was paying 54 or 6 per cent, for its 4 per cent, loan.

The Hon. C. J. Parr ridiculed the protests about political control of Public Works expenditure in the face of their immediately following pieas for greater expedition in this or that railway or other work. So far as "North Auckland was concerned there ■certainly had been an over expenditure of some £40,000, but members forgot this was due to disastrous floods which bad necessitated Government assistance to settlers whose farms were inundated, just as had been given settlers in Marlborough and other districts in former years. 'Mr Armstrong considered the suggested beard would he ineffective as a means of obviating political influence. Ho attacked the contract system of carrying out public works 'especially the letting of such a large contract "to the Armstrong-Wliit-werth Company, who were wealthy monopolists. New Zealand might be able to do the work quite as well by it be adopt ion of the co-operative contract system in its proper form. GISBORNE-NAPIER RAILWAY. Sir George Hunter pleaded for tlie Napier-Gisborne railway connection at tlie earliest possible date. He pointed out that only £126,000 was spent last year out of £150,000 vot•ecl. This year’s proposed vote was £170,030. ~ , . Mr Eddie said the back-blocks districts should have the first consideration in the matter of roading facilities. The Hon. D. Buddo added his protest to those” made regarding the .treatment of the Lake Coleridge ny-dro-eleetric scheme. Messrs Lvsnar and T. W. Rhodes stressed the need for better access to backblocks lands. Mr Rhodes appealed for relief for gold miners who had been adversely affected by the embargo on export during tlie war. Mr Langstone hoped the Minister would maintain his policy relating to electric works, so that all users of current would lie placed on an ecual -tooting in the matter of price. Me protstecl against the motor tax d £l5O imposed on lorries used on tne Tokaanu road.- It was a very unfair .handicap on residents of lokaanu, especially natives who had estaolimed a dairy factory, for which this road was the only outlet. _ When the House resumed at t.dU Mr Langstone continued the debate on the Public Works Estimates, condemning the construction of puolic works by contract. ,- Mr Sicley accused the Premier of inconsistency, stating that, when m •Opposition, Mr Maspey bad c,jn demned the practice of bringing down the Public Works Statement m the dvilig hours of tlie session. Notin the twelve years since the Remrm -Government had been m office nicl the Statement been brought down early in the session. He had llso demned the present method or ro.in monev as abominable, humilaung and wasteful, yet liad made no change The Minister for Public Yorks vwis likewise inconsistent because m one -part of his Statement lie deployed the multiplicity of local bodies ye on another page he gloried in the fact that there were 36 new povei b °Mr Sullivan complained of the nnrqual allocation of money for public works. Auckland was getting more than Wellington and the whole of the South Island. He did not object to this expenditure in the North, strongly advocated the completion or the main south trunk railway as an Mr Forbes said the House knew nothing of many of the votes on the Estimates. Whatever Government came into power in future the hist thing they would have to do was to -set up a Public Works Committee which would carefully investigate ■every claim for expenditure. 41House could then vote moiiet v Cel. Bell claimed that Auckland and the northern districts were only getting expenditure proportionate with their needs and development. He defended the contract system as the cheapest method of constructing public works. , , , , „,.j Mr Hanan condemned what he called the "borrow and squander policy of the Government. hen the Reform party was in Opposition tiny denounced borrowing but then < lions to-day exposed their hyp°ci» y and showed that they obtained office by false pretences. DEBATE ON ESTIMATES.

The House then went into committee on the . . The Hon J. G. Coates, replying to previous criticism , said Ins policy o concentration on railway' construction had resulted in the railways u •<ler construction been reduced irom to 9. During the past four years the number had been reduced irom 10 to 9. There had been some criticism ■of the Nelson-Glenhope section o line. This he admitted would not pa; -,at present, but it would when nnke -up with the main system. The West-port-Inangahua line was, in ms opm 7 tion, one of the most important in dthe Dominion, because it was necessary to link up our coal system, ide *did not favor pushing on with tne imain South Island trunk system at (present. It opened up no countiy. ;Such Crown land as was involved was imostly covered with snow and coulu, ifor the .nost part, be put in one S ’.pocket. ...... Mr Forbes: You would want a spretty big pocket. , ■ ■ , . Continuing, -.their Minister contended .that members were with one breath political influence an u •with the mext breath were demandang political railways. So far as he

knew there was not a single political railway under construction at present. He defended the present method ,oi voting moneys, as members had a clear knowledge of wliat tlie money was being voted for in their districts.

Mr Wilford contended that, while members might understand what was going on in their own districts, the House did not. That was his point. *+kh >I Aw 1S - S 1 i lg hydro-electric schemes, Minister said that all experts a+w a P r + eed i ! fc " ould be ™wise to attempt to bring power from Waikaiemoana to Wellington. To do so would mean a loss of fully 25 pe? of P°' ver in transmission. Mangahao was a necessary adjunct to Waikaremoana, and, although it had fvlmlfi? th n- estll " ated c °st by nearly f a million, that was largely due le high prices following upon the war. Construction would begin at m Sit ■’ C , m ° next year : and ultiJSiao 7 Ae J ? ined U P with Man-geneia-Hy, he eonsidred w had reason were wX?n° f All the schemes lied out l hought °ut and well car-

p ho total vote was agreed to.—