A COMPARISON.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1775, 14 March 1906, Page 1

A COMPARISON.

NEW ZEALAND AND VICTORIA.

Speaking to an interviewer concerning hi»s impression of New Zealand, Mi' Swinburne, the Victorian Minister of Agriculture, said, among other things, that in the matter of dairying, Victoria had nothing to learn from ' New Zealand. The industry in New Zealand, however, was enormously co-operative. Everywhere he went he saw signs of prosperity and contentment. The high prices of produce had sent up the price of land, and this led to trouble, which the Government was trying to overcome. A great deal of loan money was being spent by the Government and municipal bodies, but developmental work was being done. Many of the cities had electric trams. The Government was spending <£750,000 borrowed money this year on public works, but it was borrowing much more, and going in for the purchase of land and advances to settlers. The laud purchase scheme had done an immense amount of good, and in that way New Zealand had a good start of Victoria and New South Wales. Victoria, however, was' equally as prosperous as New Zealand. They had different methods there, but in Victoria they were putting people on the land as quickly as New Zealand was doing. The public works in IMew Zealand practically absorbed the unemployed, 6000 men being employed building railways. In fact, Mr Seddon said they could' not get on fast enough with public works owing to the want of men; but all this was buoyed up by borrowed money. Victoria was much more developed than New Zealand; the latter had five or six railways in course of construction, and some of them would take year@ to complete. One of the benefits, however, was that men were well distributed in the country,. -There was no more immigration there than in Victoria. Mr Seddon was going in for a policy of keeping children alive, and he had established maternity homes with that object in view. New Zealand was spending only <£12.000 a year in its Agricultural department, against Victoria's <£54,000. The money was not being spent to the best advantage either, but it was a premium to agriculture, and was doing good.