Untitled

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VIII, Issue 312, 5 December 1918, Page 4

When, some three or four weeks ago, the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister jointly received the Liquor deputation presenting a big petition on the referendum question, the Finance Minister in his reply was very emphatic in stating that his position demanded that the item of compensation should be carefully’ scrutinised. It would be upon him that the task would fall of devising the means whereby thu new liability, if incurred, was to be liquidated, and it therefore behoved him to keep a close eye upon it. In view of this definite pronouncement the Minister’s remarks on the sub ject of compensation during the discussion of the bill in rhe Houseread rather strangely. When uie amendment was proposed for placing a limit upon the aggre amount of compensation to be ] 1 he very frankly and naively atlmnted that “he did not know on ! data the Efficiency Board worked when they arrived at tl estimate of four and a half milThis ignorance seemed rather out of place in one who had made such strong professions of close scrutiny on the point, a r doubt the basis of the Board’s estimate could have beau made available to him. But stranger still was his further confession that “he did not know on what basis the accountant worked who had made the estimate (some three millions and three-quarters) for the Prime Minister.” Even if there were any doubt about his having access to the figures upon which the Efficiency Board worked, there can surely be none about those upon which the Prime Minister’s “thoroughly competent accountant” had founded his estimate. Yet the Finance Minister, professedly’ so anxious about this particular phase of the new legislation, made no difficulty of admitting that he had not troubled to analyse them. Then finally, to xiap all, he is reported as having shid that “he agreed there should be a limit to the amount of compensation to be paid. But the limit must not be within the amount that would be awarded by the assesment boards. The limit should be beyond the four and a-half millions. He would not mind going bevond that to the extent of a million in fixing tie limit,” . As we said yesterday, it seemed inconsistent that the House, having once accepted the principle of compensation, should nave insisted upon a limit being imposed. But it seems strange indeed that the Finance Minister, who had declared himself so peculiarly interested in this element of the new proposals had not troubled to acquaint himself more thoroughly with the data at his disposal. However, the limit of four and a-half millions was so readily’ accepted by the House that- we may’ assume those members affected with friendship for “the Trade” were fairly well assured that it would prove sufficient to cover all claims admitted by the bill.