WHY THE LOAN IS WANTED.

Evening Star, Issue 7432, 30 January 1888, Page 4

WHY THE LOAN IS WANTED.

[‘ Hansakd.’] ( Concluded.) Sir J. Vookl; Will the hon. gentleman allow me to .state this positively ; that there is no “ ear-marking ” in any shape nr form to prevent the route of the North Island Trunk Line being changed and the line being taken by Taranaki ? The Statement of the hon. gentleman’s own colleague must convince him of the fact, and therefore he must know that what he says is incorrect. Mr Fish Kit : No ; I call the special attention of those hon. members who have an aversion to any loan proposals, as I have myself, to this point. The hon. gentleman makes the insidious suggestion—and I warn the House against its adoption—that only a half-million loan should be authorised now. He thinks—it is a vain delusion, of course—of the possibility of his coming back to these benches next year, and he therefore suggests that the borrowing should be kept down this year, and that what is borrowed should be “ ear-marked,” so that he may be left free to borrow largely next year, when, as he vainly thinks, he may be in office. Sir, I have already this session stated in this House that I have as great aversion to borrowing as any member possibly can have; but I have realised, in the short time we have been in office, what the exact position of the finances of the country is. The hon. gentleman himself knows what their condition is ; but it suits him, for party purposes, to attempt to mislead hon. members. Sir, the hon. gentleman knows better than all others what the position of the finances is at the present time. He it was who brought them into that position. He has told us that there went forth a great cry from the Government and their friends of their desire to bring about a reinstatement of the colonial finance. To that I say Yes. It was, and still is, our desire to bring about a reinstatement at as early a date as we had supposed it to be possible. This, too, I desire also to say: that I am confident, speaking again from an intimate knowledge of the “clever” way in which the hon. gentleman has

bungled our finance, that that reinstatement will be postponed for a very long time if the hon. gentleman is to come back to office. Now, Sir, I wish to explain that if the hon. gentleman will obtrude these matters upon the notice of the House, it becomes our duty to follow them up. He tells us he is bound to make the statements he has made this evening, because it behoves him to be careful of his own reputation. Well, it would ill become me to say anything of the hon. gentleman’s reputation. His reputation is in his own keeping, and we may assume that it is in good hands ; but what we have to carefully guard is the reputation of this country, which, I venture to think, is of greater moment to us than the hon. gentleman’s reputation. I have warned the hon. gentleman on previous occasions that he must be prepared to hear unpleasant truths whenever he ventures to vaunt his own superiority in discussing financial questions. 1 wish the House to mark this : It is not wc who raise these questions. But when they are raised wc cannot help remembering, amongst other things, what when the last million and a half loan was raised the hon, gentleman’s connection with it cost the Colony no less than LOO,OOO. The loan was floated at LO7 ss, whilst the lowest quotation for 4 per cent, stock of other colonies was LlO3. That was what we paid for the connection of the hon. gentleman’s name with the finances of this country. The hon. gentleman really ought to be more guarded in raising these questions. Ido not wish to say one word upon that point; but when the hon. gentleman comes here and talks of preserving his reputation, we must not forget what the effects of his reputation have been upon the finances of the Colony. The hon. gentleman may laugh as much as he pleases, but it is no laughing matter for this country to know —as wc all do know—that our last loan brought so low a price, and that our bonds are now standing at a discount of Ll2 as compared with the stock of New South Wales, although when he took office in 1884 there was no material difference between the price of our 4 per cent, bonds and those of the best of the other Australasian colonies. The hon. gentleman, if it so pleases him, may indulge in mystifications with regard to finance, and may talk in dismal tones about our management, but the House is not likely to forget the rueful results of his connection with our finance

Sir J. Vogel : I wish to say that the hon, gentleman, in stating that when we left office the bonds of the Colony were at a discount of Ll2, is entirely mistaken. They stood at par when we left office. They have fallen since.

Mr Fisher : Oh! we do not rely upon telegraphed versions of the price of our stock. I take the quotations in the leading financial papers, and I presume hon. gentlemen will accept such authorities as the ‘Economist’ and Westgarth. An Hon. Mushier : And the ‘ Standard Mr Fisher : The 1 Standard ’ has an aversion to New Zealand; but we may safely take the opinions of unbiassed authorities such as I have named. The hon. gentleman rather ridiculed the statement of the Colonial Treasurer that he found himself under the unpleasant necessity of having to provide funds to carry on the services of the country; and the hon. gentleman, as is usual on these occasions, proceeded to deliver a treatise upon the duties of a Colonial Treasurer. Well, I believe in the principle laid down by Emerson—that a man’s fortune, his reptutation, is the result of his character; and if the hon. gentleman opposite and my hon. friend the Colonial Treasurer are to be guaged in this way by results, I venture to say that the results will tell very heavily against the hon, member for Christchurch North. The hon. gentleman further tells us that the Public Works Statement is a bid for the votes of those hon. gentlemen who are averse to borrowing. Well, here again the hon. gentleman contradicts himself most strangely, for in another part of his speech he said the exact reverse ; but in reality the Statement is, as the hon. gentleman describes it, an appeal to those hon. members who arc averse to borrowing, for it is the first real attempt that has been made for many years to limit the expenditure of the country, and to keep our expenditure within our means. If it is an appeal to hon. members who arc averse to borrowing, it is an honest and a conscientious one it is a distinct undertaking that the Colony shall not go upon the London money-market to borrow again for a term of three years; and I do not sec bow those members who are sincerely and earnestly opposed to borrowing can require anything further from the Government. It is a distinct, definite, and well-thought-out Statement, which the Government is justified in bringing down, and will not be justified in departing from. It is the complement of the policy so clearly laid down in the Financial Statement. The hon. gentleman says the Statement forms no guarantee that there shall not be further borrowing for three years, but he must know perfectly well that the guarantee will reach the London money-market, and that if any attempts were made to raise money before the expiry of the three years, the guarantee would be produced against us. The hon. gentleman, as I have already remarked, said it would be presumptuous and arrogant to attempt now to regulate the expenditure for the next three years. Why so ? I think it a plain and businesslike proposal, to which any business man would give ready assent. It is only the politician —the politician with strong party bias—who would call it presumptuous and arrogant ; but I venture to say that it will meet with the approval of every unbiassed thinker. The proposal is clear, distinct, definite, businesslike; and Ido not see how any person not swayed by political bias can come to any other conclusion in regard to it. If hon. gentlemen who accuse us of dealing in vague generaltics will look at the figures in the Statement they will see that there is a definite businesslike plan laid down for the guidance of Government and Parliament for the next three years, and once accepted there can be no departure from it. There is no equivocation in any form. I submit that the hon. gentleman’s criticisms in no way apply to this Statement. They must have been framed upon the presumption that they were to be directed against some Statement similar in character to those indefinite and “elastic” Statements which the hon. gentleman has himself been in the habit of placing before this House for some years past. Sir, I regret—as I always do regret upon these occasions—tnat the hon. gentleman should ha'-e thrown down such provocative challenges challenges which induce comparisons between bis financing and the financing of others to whom he is opposed—because the record is so much against him. I would advise the hon. gentleman, if he will consent to accept advice from mo, not to again invite criticism upon this particular point on any future occasion, .“Sir, I have nothing further to say. I desire only to appeal to hon. gentlemen who have a conscientious objection to further borrowing to consider what the position of the country is, what liabilities we have to meet, and to tell the Government and the House, if they can, how those liabilities are to be met, if they arc not to be met in the way the Government propose. It seems to me that the position is clear as noonday to any person who honestly desires to understand. It is clear that we must provide LI ,300,000 by the end of April, to meet the unpleasant legacy of liability left to us by our predecessors; and I say that if we arc not entitled to the support of the House under these circumstances, we are not entitled to its support under any circumstances whatever.