THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1902. MINISTERS AND AUCKLAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11955, 2 May 1902, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1902. MINISTERS AND AUCKLAND.

The address of Mr. Napier to his constituents on Wednesday evening may well be entitled, " A Defence of the Government," which is just what the address of a member ought not to be. But really when a member goes to Wellington so firmly tied as 1 Mr. Napier is to Ministers, we cannot expect him to fulfil the most important functions of a representative or to give us anything like an accurate view of the position of the colony. In such a case as that of Mr. Napier the party becomes more important than the colony, and personal interests more important than those of constituents. Mr. Napier occupies a considerable portion of his speech with a statement showing how prosperous the colony is at the present time. The population has within ten years increased 21 per cent., which is not a large increase, and we now consume 27 per cent, more tea and 29 per cent, more spirits, and so on. But Mr. Napier goes further, saying, " All these things showed that the people had more money to spend, were more prosperous, and that their earning and spending power's were respectively greater than under the old system of government." There is no doubt in his mind that the increases he has enumerated are all owing to the Liberal Government, and that the " old system of government" made all the difference. Increase of prosperity is not owing to the extension of the frozen meat trade, the existence of the dairy industry, the good markets we have had in England, the steady annual borrowing—all is to be ascribed to the Liberal Government. Mr. Napier tells us how the number of factories has increased within the past ten years, as if an increase in any case were something to be wondered at, and as if an increase could not be made by enacting that a factory was a place where any two persons were employed, and the number was mainly a matter of enumeration and inclusion. The Premier himself has uttered more than one caution in regard to the financial position of the colony, intimating that v/e must " go slow." But Mr. Napier has nothing to say on that subject. We are to go on with a rapidly increasing expenditure, and every shortage is to be made up by borrowed money. On the subject of pubic works in the Auckland provincial district Mr. Napier was to have played a prominent part. But he now roars as gently as any sucking dove. The

Auckland members insisted upon £250.000 as an "irreducible minimum" in order that the work might be completed by 1901. Ministers simply laughed at Mr. Napier with his '-irreducible minimum." They asked the House to vote £160.000. which of itself was a mere delusion, because, as Mr. Napier says, "the greater part of the £180,000 had been actually spent before the Estimates were passed." That was proved by the fact that within a few weeks after Parliament was prorogued the men were discharged, and although a new loan of a million and a-half has been raised, the works have not been resumed. One would have thought that Mr. Napier should have been indignant at the manner in which he has been befooled—if, indeed, he has been befooled. But perhaps the calm way in which he takes the upsetting of all the projects about which we heard so much during his candidature indicates that he has only been playing a part. He is actually an apologist for Ministers. He tells the people that " they had to see that the work was finished by 1904.'' They entrusted that task of looking after Ministers to him. He pleads with the people of Auckland on behalf of the Minister for Public Works. "He believed the Minister for Public Works was sincerely anxious to complete the work by June, 1904." We are quite ready to admit that he may be anxious to have the work done by that time. But it would be well for him to show his anxiety by putting on men to do it instead of drafting the Dunedin unemployed to form cooperative parties on the Otago Central.

On the land question Mr. Napier is also the apologist for Ministers, defending them' for their action in respect to the lands of Kawhia. What Ministers did in that matter was to advertise for months that the land would be open to be purchased for cash ; to be leased, with the right of purchase, after a time and after certain improvements ; and on perpetual lease. After many intending settlers had made all their arrangements and at the eleventh hour the Government withdrew the lands, afterwards putting them up for lease only. Mr. Napier says: "He held that generation after generation there should be rental derivable from the lands belonging to the State." He says the money derived from the sale of land has all been spent within the year. That is reckless finance, and Mr. Napier, as a member of the House, should resist it. But this perpetual lease is the most profitless of all ways of dealing with land for the State. The rental is merely a percentage on the cost of purchase. There is no revaluation, and whatever value the land may rise to, the State gets no more. But when land is sold it immediately becomes subject to land tax, and it is subject to taxation in many other ways. When an owner dies there is a heavy tax before the land passes to his heir. We have no doubt whatever that there are areas of land which have been sold and returned considerable sums to the Government, . and which will ! yield more to the State for ever after this, than many like areas ; which are under perpetual lease, and | which involve expense for inspecI tors, collectors of rent, etc. . " I It was perhaps only to be exi pected that Mr. Napier should have ■included" in'his scheme of apology for Ministers a vindication of their action in raising their own salaries and in raising the payment of members. The latter point, we are quite willing that Mr. Napier should take the responsibility of. But we do not think that a representative ofc the people should put himself so entirely in the position of a vindicator of Ministers. That should be left to themselves. Ministers have not dealt fairly with Auckland by any means, and whatever party he may belong to we cannot conceive of any independent Auckland member addressing his constituents without strongly censuring Ministers for what they have done and what they have left undone.