Lake Wakatip Mail. QUEENSTOWN, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 1906 THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 2644, 4 September 1906, Page 4

Lake Wakatip Mail. QUEENSTOWN, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 1906 THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Since we last wrote on political matters the Address from the Throne has been delivered, the Financial Statement brought down and the policy of the Government declared. We can only afford time and spaco to briefly direct the attention of our readers to the more prominent features of these and refer them to the originals for a more detailed delirerance. Each, however, confirms the reasonable hopes that were entertained not by the Ministerial party alone but by intelligent electors of all parties. In fact the composition of the Ministry and the general principles of their policy have largely, if they have not completely, destroyed those meaningless and irrele\ant designations, "liberal" and " conservative," that for so many yeare did duty and passed muster with the more subservient and servile followers of the Seddoic regime in the Press, on the platform and in the House. It is true the so-called Liberal press, as represented by the ' Lyttelton Times ' and the ' Dunedin Star,' continue to hide their discomfiture over the triumph of commonsense business methods in the art of Government, by banging the party drum as loudly as ev«r, but their zeal and their noise are nullified by the naivete of their admissions and the compliments they are incessantly paying the Ward Government. Every eulogy of Sir Joseph Ward's policy and proposals is an indirect censure of the autocratic methods, the waste of)time, the vexatious delays, the bullying tone, that were so long in possession at Wellington. Sir Joseph Ward in the conciseness and directness and brevity of his tactics is the antithesis of his most famous predecessor and the praise now awarded him by the Ministerial press is the most convincing endorsement of the arguments advanced, in season and out of season, by independent journals and politicians. As for the "liberal" and "conservative" labels, they were always senseless and have now becoma ludicrous. What the colony has are Ministerialists and Oppositionists. By adopting business principles, celerity in the conduct of the work of Parliament, promptitude in the supplying of returns, readiness to consult the reasoi.ab'e wishes of members, the Government hive don# what has not been done for many years, whilst in promising the re-establishment of sinking funds, the redemption of Treasury bills, the charging of the cost i of additions to and repairs of public

buildings to the Consolidated Fund and not to the Public Works Fund (a favorite means of swelling the suiplus) they have boldly stolen the clothes of the Opposition and thereby considerably improved their own erstwhile dilapidated, if showy, appearance. In brief, New Zealand is, we are glad to say, returning, after a lengthy debauch of questionable and dangerous experiment, to the paths of sanity and wisdom and we can afford to smile at those chagrined journalists who with characteristic effrontery are affecting to make believe that there has been no break in the continuity of what they rhetorically acclaim as " a Progressive Liberal Policy." The country and its intelligence need not concern themselves with these peculiar logicians, who are never at ease unless actively engaged in proving black to be white and plain records to be mere fairy tales. The Address from the Throne, though free from much of the wordy nonsense and copy book morality of the past, was far too long. Ministers are going outside their province and running more than a risk of making " a holy show" of one another when in their collective and representative capacity they help fill their address with a general survey of all that has happened in the previous twelve months and drag in their opinions on the attempt on the lives of the King and Queen of Spain, the San Francisco earthquake, the Japanese Famine and so on. This sort of thing, we trust, j will not occur again—it tends to make us a laughing stock, and that we should avoid. Coming to the Financial Statement, brought down be it remembered j a week after Parliament was opened, there has been a general chorus of approval from all classes in all parts of the colony—the Ministerial Press, we may note, being particularly indiscriminate in their uncritical effusions. Regarded as a whole, the statement is the- opposite to what the " Liberal" party have been accustomed. It is clear, vigorous, brief. There is an absence of anything objectionable although necessarily there is present something on which men differ. But it leaves small room for shuffling and equivocation. There is no waiting to catch the trend of popular desire before speaking, we know on which side Ministers are and they command our respect if not our support for the determination they have shown to stand or fall by their policy. This is as it should be, and will enhance their reputation even among their opponents. It is more than half the battle when we know where and who our friends are. Among the good things promised in the Budget are further postal concessions that will place New Zealand to the front of all other countries in the cheapness of its rates; the setting apart of the remaining Crown lands as endowments for the maintenance of old age pensions, educational and charitable institutions and hospitals—a most wise and necessary provision—the settlement of workers on land along the lines of railways and the completion of these last on a more rapid plan than has hitherto prevailed. The main feature and that around which the conflict will chiefly wage is, however, the land proposals of the Government. These we cannot now discuss but an opportunity will occur when the new Minister of Lands, the Hon. R. M'Nab, brings down his Bill embodying the Cabinet policy. Suffice to say they abolish the perpetual lease, limit the holding of any one owner, and make the acquisition of the freehold extremely expensive. The amendment of the Customs Tariff is deferred till next year and we do not think that the reciprocity treaty entered into between Mr Seddon and Mr Deakin will be accepted. At this hour we have not had time to study it carefully but a treaty that involves a loss to the colony of £170,000 for duty on sugar is hardly likely to be approved when the quid pro quo is of such doubtful benefit.