The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 1896. THE BORROWING PROPOSALS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 11049, 29 August 1896, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 1896. THE BORROWING PROPOSALS.

Why should not the principle of the referendum be applied iu the ease of the Loan Bill now before Parliament ? It appears to us that the adoption of such a course would remove the objections of supporters of the Government who are pledged to a non-borrowing policy, and would secure harmonious action on the part of the Liberal majority in the House. The member for Avon has made the suggestion, and we see no reason why it should not be carried into effect. All that is necessary is for the House, when in committee on the Bill, to insert a new clause declaring that the measure shall not become operative until a vote of the electors shall have been taken on the subject, when, if a majority should declare in favour of the proposal, the Government would at once proceed to raise the loan, while if the vote were adverse the proposal would fall to the ground. In the matter-of local loans it is generally recognised that it would be unsafe to entrust the representative body with power to pledge the credit of the ratepayers without the latter exercising a check upon the proposal. Is there any sound reason why the same rule should not apply to parliamentary borrowing proposals ? The people are taxpayers,

and they should be placed in a position to give a direct vote for or against any further pledging of their credit.

The Hon John M’Kenzie, whose Liberalism is above suspicion, recognises the justice of the demand for a reference to the people; for, speaking after Mr Tanner, he declared that the Government would not accept the dictum of the House in the matter of the million loan, but was prepared to go to the people for their verdict. But, if the Cabinet recognises the paramount authority of the people, it should have no objection to making the question of borrowing depend upon the popular will, independently of whether the House of Representatives is favourable or the reverse. And everyone must see that it would be eminently unsatisfactory to refer the matter to the electors,' merely as one of many issues at the general election; If that course were followed it would be impossible to say whether the electorates approved or disapproved of borrowing, as in most instances the election would be determined on party lines, and in a few on purely personal grounds, away altogether from any particular question of policy. The general election is at hand, and nothing could be more simple than to arrange for a vote of the people being taken on the question: ‘‘ Shall the Government be empowered to raise a loan of one million sterling to aid the public works and land settlement funds ?”

By the decision of the people every Liberal in the country would loyally abide. Even the member for Selwyn, with his invincible aversion to borrowing, could not logically refuse to support a Loan Bill whose operation was made contingent upon the expressed will of the people of the colony in this direct way. Members pledged up to the bilt ” in favour of a policy of self-reliance could vote for such a measure with perfect consistency and meet their constituents—“ face the music,” in the phrase of the iVlinister of Lands with complete equanimity, which they would not be able to do if they supported the Bill in its present shape. By the inclusion of a referendum clause in the Bill, as we have suggested, many Liberal members would be freed from having, to choose between the puzzling alternatives of voting with the Government against their convictions, or with the Opposition in order to respect their pledges to their constituents. We have on a former occasion stated our conviction that no loan should be authorised just now until the electors have had an opportunity of expressing their views on the subject, and we are firmly of opinion that a direct referendum vote on the occasion of the general election would be the most satisfactory method of ascertaining the mind of the public on this important question. If the vote were against borrowing, it would be an intimation to the Government that the people preferred to bear increased taxation to meet necessary expenditure, rather than see the permanent burden of debt increased. The only section of the House that will not be satisfied with the referendum idea is, of course, the Opposition, led by Captain Russell and Sir Robert Stout, whose only aim is to thwart and harass the Government by every possible means. The members of that party oppose the present very moderate Joan proposals, not on principle, because they are all in favour of borrowing, but on no other apparent ground than that they object to a Liberal Government having any money to spend. These gentlemen would not be pleased if the country were to decide against borrowing, and were to instruct the Government to increase the'land tax and extend the principle of graduated taxation in order to find the necessary money for carrying on public works and land settlement. A referendum vote on this subject would, in fact, expose the arrant hypocrisy of the Opposition in the matter of borrowing. On every ground, we think it highly desirable that provision should be made for referring this question to the direct vote of the electors. It would be much better to do this than to have the subject of borrowing mixed up with the other election issues. We therefore commend these considerations to Ministers and members generally, in the hope that a recognition of the democratic principle of the referendum will provide a way out of the present rather involved situation.