PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 27 July 1940, Page 5

PUBLIC WORKS

PUBLIC WORKS

PROPOSED EXPF.ND'TIIRI'

— THE RIMUTAKA RAILWAY. Mr Robertson: ”1 certainly want I schools, for they are very essential to the welfare of the country. I will not be hypocritical like some honourable members opposite, and will not suggest that we should cut down public works expenditure to the extent of interfering with school buildings. More (han that, I am disappointed that there is not an item on the Estimates for the Rimutaka tunnel, for instance. That would serve one of the richest agriculture! and pastoral districts in New Zealand, which is handicapped through lack of suitable railway access. There is a scenic railway there, twisting to all points of the compass over the Rimutakas, and the heavy operating expenses would be avoided if the tunnel were put through. The tunnel would pay for itself in the savings in operating costs. That is wanted for development just as much as irrigation is wanted to develop the electorate o'f the honourable member for Central Otago. I do not ask for the cutting down of public works expenditure and then ask the Department in the next breath to spend money in my own electorate. That goes on by the Opposition through the whole gamut of public works expenditure. Do we intend, because we are at war. that there should be deterioration to such an extent that development of hydro-electricity will be retarded, that the development of good roads for transport should be stopped, that land development schemes should be abandoned, and that nothing should be done to keep up the essential development of the country? The honourable member who moved the amendment and those who will support him, are proposing to make New Zealand a country that will be unable to absorb into civil life the men who come back after having fought our battle abroad. That would bring New Zealand to the pauper's level.”

Mr Fraser: “The amentrnent means that we would go back to the depression years, unemployment, starvation and soup kitchens. We would go back to semi-starvation for which the Opposition party was responsible." SLUMP AFTER LAST WAR. Mr Robertson: “That is so. If the amendment is carried, and if public works expenditure is cut down the country would be forced into a depression and would certainly not be a country fit for heroes to live in. Let us consider what happened during the last war when public works expenditure was stopped, housing was practically stopped, and development generally ceased. The country was faced with a slump immediately after the war, and indeed it has not even yet recovered from the effects of that retrograde policy. We have never yet been able to overtake the shortage that took place in connection with housing." Mr Robertson went on to contend that the demand for houses would be more than ever acute when the war was over and that roads were tremendously important from the military point of view. He asked whether Opposition members wanted to see a repitition of what happened before when such works as the East Coast railway were stopped, with millions of pounds going to waste. Declaring that lie wholeheartedly supported the Estimates and would support them if they even greater. Mr Robertson concluded: "We should take a bigger view just because we are al war. Everything that tends to increase production and to develop land such as irrigation, swamp drainage, land development schemes, including Native land development schemes, the improvement of our roads and railways, including rolling stock and additions to. existing lines is absolutely necessary if this country is to maintain its position and appeal to everyone as a country worth, lighting for, and if needs be dying for. Those who are supporting the amendment are telling us that we are not to devdlop the country, but that we must stop every work, even if it would assist us to resist an enemy and to develop the country generally. Why is everything to be cut down? Members of the Opposition know that the Estimates will not be cut down, but they are simply trying to score a point with the public by talking about public works expenditure. I am satisfied that the general expenditure in the Estimates makes for the balanced development of our natural resources, and will enable New Zealand to maintain a growing population."

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE DEFENDED BY MEMBER FOR MASTERTON. DEVELOPMENT NECESSARY IN WAR & PEACE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON. This Day. Speaking in the debate on the Public Works Statement yesterday, the member for Masterton (Mr J. Robertson) said an extraordinary position had been created by the amendment moved by the member for Waitomo (Mr W. j. Broadfoot). Mr Broadfoot, said Mr Robinson, proposed to refer the Statement back to the Government with a view to reducing expenditure on other than war items; yet he had criticised the Government for not having brought about a much greater development of hydro-electric services. Mr Broadfoot: “It is a question Of putting the money into the right avenue.” Mr Robertson: “It is always a question of putting the money into the right avenue. I challenge hon. members on the other side of the House’ who are supporting the amendment to get up and tell us what public works expenditure they would cut out in their own electorates. That is the acid test. It is quite true that in all districts public works expenditure has been drastically reduced. We do not have a single word from the other side of the House commending the Government for cutting down public works expenditure. . . . Then the hon. member for Central Otago put in a plea for more expenditure on irrigation. Mr Bodkin: “By cutting out all the other expenditure, and granting 10s in the £ in respect of irrigation works.” INCONSISTENCY ALLEGED. Mr Robertson: “Hon. members are always advocating the cutting down of expenditure in other members’ electorates, but they do not want to cut down expenditure in their own electorates. Again I challenge members on the Opposition benches to state what expenditure they would cut out in their own electorates. Hon. members opposite are very inconsistent, for if the amendment were agreed to and the estimates were amended along the lines advocated by the two members who have spoken, the Estimates would come back containing provision for the expenditure of twice or three times the amount proposed. That is what would happen judging from the speeches we have heard from the other side. As to public works, I have already referred to the misconception in the minds of so many people. The other day in my own electorate, a supporter of the party opposite, in one breath was deprecating the public works expenditure, and in the next breath was asking me when the £9,000 grant for the Masterton West School would be approved. I am not going to advocate the cutting down of public works expenditure if it means the cutting out of the grant for the Masterton West School, for I think the school is needed, and any curtailment of that class of expenditure would be disastrous. And so we go on over the whole gamut of the various items. Members opposite should specify the items in the Estimates that they want to see cut down not only in their own electorates, but anywhere.” Mr Jull: “Supposing I begin by attacking the hon gentleman's school?”