THE BUDGET DEBATE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1232, 14 September 1911, Page 6

THE BUDGET DEBATE.

ATTACK AND DEFENCE. :■ SETTLERS' HARDSHIPS. . : WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT'S • LAND POLICY? The debate- on the Financial Statement was continued in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon:— Mr. J. B. Hino (Stratford) declared that the Budget was a misleading budget, in that a very largo percentage of debt that.was really not interest-bearing was included in tho total described as inter-est-bearing. Amongst the items he specified wero the amounts set down as provincial Liability and Public Buildings. Ho found fault with the Government tor having reduced the expenditure on roads and bridges, more than five millions having been spent previously to 1891, and only .£1,765,251 since then. Some of the settlers were despairing under the hardships caused by the lack of decent communication. He remarked upon the absence from tho Budget of any re-, ferance to the main questions ot tne day, which he thought wero the tenure question, and the bast means for reduction of the cost of living. He knew that Government supporters would say that the cost o£ living was mentioned, bo it was in a vague sort of way, in a proposal to set up a Eoyal Commission to consider it as well as a scheme ,for insurance against unemployment. Three or four really progressive measures mentioned in the Budget had been adopted from the Reform party's platform, lie referred to tho statements made by Mr. Fowlds concerning the capturo el theLiberal party, by men Seeking-place and power, and the consequent lapse of tho party from tho principles upon which it was founded. He condemned the Government's failure to maintain a reasonably active immigration policy, which would encourage settlers with small means coming to this country. If they were assistEd, these men might arrive in tho country with sufficient money to go on the •land, if again the Government would do what it had not hitherto done, and let him acquire land on such conditions, as would enable him to make a Btart on the land. He thought the- House had • been hoaxed when the Debt Extinction Bill had been parsed. ' He referred also to the cost of the five million loan. The million loan preceding it had cost nearly four , per cent, in flotation expenses. He sincerely hoped that the Government had not, in putting the five million loan on tho London market, had to offer like , inducements to the British, money-lender in order to make tho loan a •success. Members could not ascertain tho real cost; the Government would not 6upply tho necossaTy data. Reverting to the roads and bridges expenditure of the Government, he found fault with their practice of withholding annually large sums unexpended from the amount voted by the House, which annual amounts wore withhold for tho purpose of bribing the electors on the evo of this election. Government had, been guilty-of a like failure to expend a great deal of tho money voted for the purchase of Native land. , Less than a million had been so spent since 4 1891, and. previously to that nearly a million and a half had been spent. Of the seven • millions of acres of Maori Innd, less than two millions were leased to Europeans, and the remaining five million acres wore practically lying waste, for only a very little farming was done, by the. Maoris.. In the same period tho Government had Bpent in acquiring, land .already' settled nnd bringing in revenue more than five, millions sterling..- Not that.tho Opposi-' tion would, if in power, .drop the lands for settlement scheme, but they,.'would first of all direct their attention to lands lying idle. All' tho , whilei the Maori was leaping the .benefit .in hugely enhanced land values-,of the public.works carried out with •the', money raised on the security of ,tho .taxes paid by the pakeha. Ho was in favour of buying up all Native land,. compulsorily if necesnary. Tho Maori could still be taught to farm intelligently, and with industry, but he would neveT be. a useful citizen until he was compelled by. force of circumstances to work. 'Generally he was satisfied that,the Government ought to give more of its attentions to solid business such as the settlement of land, 1 and less to tho useless trimmings which made pp most of this year's Budget.

THE MEMBER FOR KAIPARA. • ■HOW TO PEE VENT BETEOGEESSION. '■.■'■■ Mr. J. Stallworthy (Kaipara) replied to the statoment nindo by Mr. Hino that the policy of the Government was a yP.tecatcliing one .and accused the Oppositionin turn of having promulgated under the uamo.of "lleform" what was really a vote-catching policy. Ho said the Opposition had several times changed their policy in tho' endeavour, futile as it had always been, to persuade the electors to return them, to power. It was only natural that good proposals should catch votes, just as bad ones would lose them, and it was'because the electors recognised good proposals when they saw them that they had continued to return the Liberal party to power. There was no need to fear depression in this country, but the only sure preventive of retrogression and possible distress was the pursuance of such a vigorous public works policy a3 the Government had always followed. - There might be unrest in this country, as the Leador of the Opposition had said, but our unrest was nothing to , that which obtained in practically every part of the world at present.

SOMETHING IN A NAME. SPEECH BY ME, MANDEE. Mr. F. Mandor (Marsden) did not claim that' all tho Government, meusures wero bad,, or that all the good things that ever happened in Parliament canio-from the''.Opposition. 'Ho quoted the recent expression of opinion of,the Hon. G col 's° Fdwlds as being-one of some , worth,, tendingVto show that the Government no longer, deserved, the,.name it bore. ....Ho had never put muoh value on a name, but it '\yaa possible thjit •. there was really - somethingin the naming of tho parties in New Zealand. As a matter of fact tho Oppo- , sition party was wrongly named Conservative, for even in the beginning its-mem-bers were the successors and followers of Cobden, Bright, and Gladstone. If tho party- had been called Liberals and their opponents Socialists or (someone suggested) opportunists, the names would havo been moro fitting. With the Budget generally'.he fouiul but littlo--fault; it- referred to a lot of measures which iho thought good, but there was-much in tho Government policy not contained in- the Budget, with which ho did find faiilt.' Notably ho condemned the Government's inactivity in dealing with Native land, which was being increased in valuo enormously by tho efforts of the white man, and escaping taxation all tho while. Many of the proposals had been borrowed from the Opposition, but he was not of those who objected to the Government doing this. He criticised adversely tho Government's' failure to effect somo much-need-ed reforms in local government, especially in their persistent adherence to th-.- making of grants without system. He suggested that tho Government should offer snbsidies according as lucal bodies taxed their own areas for the purpose of borrowing. Ho found fault also with the reduction of the railway fares, after it had been found necessary to raise them in order to make the railways pay. . It was not good business management such as ought to bo exercised in tho control of. our railway system, to raise fares one year and then to reduce them in re-: spoTiso to popular clamour. He was not satisfied that the Government would deprive any benefit- from the proposed nolo issue, and there was an element of danger in it also. Mr. Mandor concluded his speech three minute? after the House resumed for tho ovoninß. sitting, and when he took .his seat tho ..dobato. almost broko down.. Tho Speaker made, the usual inquiry as to whether any other member wished to speak, ami as ho one ror-e for the mi>mont ho addod: "If not, I shall call upon tho Hon. tho Prime Minister to reply." Sir Jossph Ward roso slowly, but Mr. Scott and Mr. Glover n»e at the saino time-. The Speaker ua.iicd Mr. Scott as

having first caught his eye. Mr. Massey suggested that Mr. Glover, should bo called upon, but tho Primo Minister insisted that. as Mr. Scott had been named he ought to speak. :

AN OTAGO MEMBER/ IRRIGATION AND MINING. . Mr. R. Scott (Tuapeka), after making a fow general remarks on the Budget, strongly advocated tho irrigation scheme for that largo and at present arid tract of Central Otago which lies partly within the boundaries of tho Tuapeka electorate. Referring to mining, lie said that tho Budget showed that tho output ot gold had decreased. This was a sufficient reason to justify the Government in assistin)? mining parties in prospecting and developing tho gold mining areas of New. Zealand. Mining was now «a business very different from what it was many years ago. All tho shallow land was worked out, and tho deep country could be worked only by' most expensive plants, which wero not easily* procured by associations of practical miners. Amongst tho important matters not mentioned in the Budget was immigration. Notwithstanding what might bo said to the contrary by certain people in the towns., there was a demand for men to go out into tho country. Tliere was not a, farmer in New Zealand from the North Cape to tho Bluff who was not' hampered in his operations by lack of labour. Farmers in Otago wero willing to pay almost any wage for officient farm labourers, and could not get them. Another class of immigrant very much desired was that of young women suitable for domestic service. In conclusion ho condemned tho Government especially for having failed to bring down a Land Bill to indicate to their supporters and their opponents before the election what their land policy truly was. ~ Mr. A. E. .Glover (Auckland Central) created moro than a simmer of laughter by informing the House that ho had learned on good authority that the land in Otago which Mr. Scott wanted the Government to irrigate would support "a lizard to the acre." and no more stock of any kind. .Then Mr. Glover talked about the emerald green fertile "lands of Ahckiand,.about the old people who were poor but pioneers, and about several other things, somo of which the Prime Minister had not thought of in framing his Budget. Generally lie approved of everything the Government had done, and ho urged them to do more of the same sort, especially to hasten the settlement of tho Native lands of Auckland.

THE LAND QUESTION. NOT MENTIONED IN THE BUDGET. Mr. AV. Nosworthy (Ashburton) remarked upon the increase in the public debt from G2 millions to' 81 millions. Last year the Prime Minister stated that for every million borrowed by the Government the wealth of the country increased three millions. This year he said that for every million borrowed the increase was ten millions. How was this arrived at? It seemed to have been a mere hazard. His chief objection to the Budget was the. Government's omitting from it all mention of a land policy. The Government were going to the country absolutely without a land ' policy. Every land policy that tho Government had brought down had been kicked from end to end of the country, until now they wero afraid of the name of land. Last year they borrowed half a million for tho purposes of promoting closer settlement under tho Lands for Settlement Act, and spent ,£152,000. Was that progressive Liberalism? Was it for that that Parliament authorised tho Government to borrow such a large sum of money?. Still on the land question lie took the Government seriously to task for the way in which it had dealt with certain runs .in the Mackenzie Country, whereby at auction., sales of licenses, aggregations had been 'permitted. If the Government could not. do better with land .than they, had with 'the , Mackenzie Country runs, they ought to stand aside and make «:ay for someone else. He thought the reduction of railway farce was .not a business-like proposition—was rather a palpable vote-catching device. On the subject .of farmers' , co-operative banks, Mr. Nosworthy said ho thought it a very desirable thing to-.establish an institution of/the kind, but-ithe Government seemed .to have departed very widely from the rules that ordinarily governed moneylending'institutions. '.The Government had- increased the public debt by over six millions during tho past twelve months. Tot they had spent only a fraction of tho amount voted by 'Parliament last, year for tho promotion' of land settlement. If he had to stand alone ho would vote against further borrowing until tho Go.veriimcnt consented 'to lay before the House returns giving definite particulars of loans, so that it might be known what was going on. AVhy did-the great Liberal party, apply heavy- taxation only to the land? AVhy did theynot tax the big brewers, drapers, and other commercial monopolies in the .cities? The Budget was a dose of chloroform to tho electors of the conntry. •'ln addition to that it was a robbery of the Opposition platform. (Applause.)

' COMPULSORY TRAINING. VIEWS OF ME. POOLE. Mr. C. H. Poolo (Auckland Wfest) declared that in his opinion 'this was the most progressive -Budget ever placed beforo this country. Its appearance was due, not to the Conservatives, but to tho repeated protests of Eadicals in the House against the lethargy of tho Liberal party in .dealing with theso problems. Mr. Poolo enlogised the National Provident Fund proposals. He ;belicved that an honest effort was being made to grapple with the problem of Native lands. In tho compulsory training scheme ho • saw a gratuitous system of physical culture for tho young people of this country. Hβ hated war, and did not believe in conscription, but ho believed in compulsory training. Naval training also might be undertaken if the Government procured a few old ships from the Imperial Government to sorvo as drill-ships. Mr. Poolo expressed dissatisfaction at the proposal .to increase the graduated tax on estates of more than .£IOO,OOO in value. This was away in the clouds. Ho wanted to see the tax brought down to estates having an improved value of .£40,000. Tho debate was adjourned, and tho House rose at 11.20 p.m.