THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1930 THE ARAPUNI REPORT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 256, 17 October 1930, Page 6

THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1930 THE ARAPUNI REPORT

Yesterday there was before us only a brief telegraphed summary of the report with which the Swedish hydro-electric engineer, Professor P. G. Hornell, and his associate, Mr. P. N. Werner, have provided the Minister of Public Works after their investigations at Arapuni. It was manifestly premature to make comment upon any such scanty information as to what these experts had really had to say. There is now, however, available to us the full text of the report, which it may be said creates quite a different impression from that left by the summary. In the first place, a perusal of it very definitely suggests, at any rate te the lay reader, that the fact of an immense sum having already been sunk in the undertaking has had a very distinct influence on its tenor. What the advice might have been had it been sought at the inception of the scheme we are left to surmise. In the next place, it is to be noted that the Swedish engineers would seem, very prudently, to have confined themselves to the specific questions submitted to them in the order of reference, presumably prepared by those responsible for the present position. From the point of view of the public, who have to pay the piper, it would certainly have been more satisfactory had they been left with a free hand to express their opinion on the original soundness of the scheme as a whole, not only as something to be patched up and made the best of. In this respect we are left just about where we were. The report acknowledges assistance from discussion with the Public Works engineers, who seem to have been in pretty close and constant attendance. It might have been as well if, also, the visitors had been able to have like discussion with the engineers of the contractors who, at very considerable expense to the country, were relieved of their job. But, taking it as it stands with all its limitations, the report can scarcely be said to afford that convincing reassurance which alone would allay the public misgivings that have been aroused. There appears to be in it —again, to the lay mind—a general note of caution and qualification, with suggestions of further risks, that docs net by any means go all the way

towards allaying apprehensions based on what has actually occurred. Fellow experts may, of course, be able to gather from its more technical phases a confidence that it can scarcely inspire in the public mind. What those in authority have now to consider in the public interests are the general aspects of the case—whether the report, ts embodied recommendations, justifies the sinking of another half-million nr so in an undertaking which has already cost something like a million more than the original estimate. The Minister has already, in anticipation of the publication of the report, given forth some figures—again, no doubt furnished by the Department particularly concerned —as to eventual capital cost and subsequent probable returns. Accepting these as presented, they would seem to warrant proceeding with the remedial work proposed. Whether in compiling these figures all possible adverse factors and contingencies have been taken into account, or whether they have been checked by any competent outside authority, cannot, of course, be said. All that may be assumed is that the Department so deeply involved will not have shown anything but the best face possible. What Cabinet, as representing the taxpayers of the country, should do is to consider themselves as directors of a commercial concern and ask whether the shareholders may be fairly called upon for this wholly unexpected further addition to working capital. Especially should they ask themselves whether they would willingly put their hands in their own pockets and make substantial contributions to it. The case of Arapuni brings us very abruptly face to face with a question that must have often previously troubled the observant and tax-paying citizen. That is as to why it is that, where enterprises of any magnitude are concerned, the estimates of the Public Works Department are so often and so substantially exceeded in actual expenditure and are so seldom not reached. While quite alive to the fact that difficulties arise against which the best skill . and knowledge could not provide, these surely are not of such constant occurrence as to be almost a regular thing. Is there, then, anything faulty in the calculations made, or is there a natural, and possibly unconscious, tendency to make the figures as acceptable as possible to political heads? Or, again, is it that the officers of the Department, like so many of the rest of us, regard the public purse as something, like Elijah’s flourbarrel, that can never go empty, nnd can therefore be relied upon to stand good for making up deficiencies? It would surely be a good thing for us all, and in particular for the Public Works Department, if this delusion were effectively dispelled.