PREMIER'S SPEECH

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 129, 5 June 1929, Page 10

PREMIER'S SPEECH

EDITORIAL CRITICISM

LAND AND RAILWAYS

(By Telegraph.)

(Special to '<The Evening Post.")

AUCKLAND, This Day.

Commenting editorially on Sir Joseph Ward's speech, the "New Zealand Herald "states:—"New Zealand, he said, with, an area almost equal to that of Great Britain and' Ireland carried only 1,000,000 people, compared with the millions in the British Isles. This he advanced as a reason for activity in land settlement. It is an excellent reason, but surely makes grotesque the idea that the end can be achieved only by the purchase of estates already in private hands. It is absurd, especially, considering the size of the Crown estate in the Auckland province alone. The various .Ministers Vho have toured the North have had urged upon them the need for making available the great and named areas of virgin land at present locked up and inaccessible for settlement. They have declared themselves impressed, yet their leader, the one man who speaks authoritatively concerning policy, does not prove to have_ advanced one step from his preelection declaration that settlement would beadvanced by the bursting up of big_ estates. So far it has been by the private purchase of moderate-sized estates, a policy that proved disastrous itot long ago and will, if pursued much longer, bring equally evil results. J'Much the same can be said about Sw Joseph on railway construction. He repeated his previous statement that branch lines and short lines would not pay, but that the main lines would. Yet in regard to one main line he had in mind, he produced no evidence in rebuttal of the charge that it would add immensely to the working losses on the South Island lines. In reply to the very comprehensive and detailed case made against the ■Ward-Parnassus section of the South Island Main Trunk line by Mr. F. J. Jones, Sir Joseph quoted in extenso the report of the Fay-Baven Commission, in which it was advocated as incidental to the establishment of a train, ferry to cross Cook Strait. Without the ferry advocacy falls to the ground. Sir Joseph surely does not seriously propose to go on with the ferry proposal. Short of it, he has no case for the line—with it a very, doubtful.one. Yet, he persists on the mere assertion against the weight, of evidence that the work is justified and will be profitable again. No advance is shown from the untenable position taken up before the election. 'Ontop of this came the whimsical complaint about requests with which Cabinet was being bombarded for new works that would involve borrowing at the rate of A 23,000,000 a year. As he justly observed, nobody could do this, yet are he and his party free of blame for the great expectations after their lavish promises before the election and the general implication that he was able to borrow unlimited money on' terms nobody else could secure? His note of caution, now is no doubt well advised, but it is rather an anti-climax after the undertakings made; perhaps more by implication than actual words, before the election. • <

"There was a decided anti-climax too m the , announcement about the harbour bridge grant of £500 for preliminary investigation. It is all the Government is justified in providing at present, but ardent bridge advocates who had been led to expect much more, are entitled to feel they have been misled. Disappointment in this and other things was the keynote of the speech." ' = •