A KERN CRITIC.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11201, 25 August 1898, Page 3

A KERN CRITIC.

AN INTERESTING SPEECH, » The speech which was delivered by Mr W. • Fraser, member for Wakatipu, in the finan- • cial debate has created so much interest that •we give a first instalment of it from the Hansard report: — ■; Mr Fraser (Wakatipu).—Sir, the honourable members on this side of the House are 1 placed at a certain amount of disadvantage as , compared with the ardent supporters of the . Government. These gentlemen are quite pre- , pared to accept as • gospel: every figure and , every statement in the Budget, consequently , they need not trouble to turn their attention .to it: it is all right, and they can discuss, ,as some of the later speakers have been doing, every conceivable subject under the sun i except finance. That is what has been hap- . pening. But we poor unfortunate Opposi- . tionists are not so trustful; we are much ■ more suspicious; it is our business to be so. . What do our constituents send us liere for • except to examine, look into, and criticise . the finances of the Government? .We.should not be doing our duty if we did not attempt this task in some measure. The last speaker said' he was very sorry for the Opposition because they had been unable to''criticise tho i,. finances of the Government, or. to say - any ■ ■ thing at all in regard to the Budget. Well if honourable members will spend most • : tlieir time outside the Chamber, they ca"; know what is going on. Tc say that tl<<has been no criticism on the Budget n\> ■ the debate began proves one of two thing.— . either that the honourable gentleman did not i hear it, or that he was incapable of appreciating proper criticism. Two or three speeches from our side have been devoted almost entirely to finance, and no doubt when the public read them in Hansard they will appreciate the efforts of those who have endeavoured to criticise the finances. Another, difficulty we on this side of the House labour under is that it is not quite so easy for ineraben, of the Opposition to get into Hansard tables of figures which were never read. jMr Kelly.—Who does that? y Mr Tanner.—See the last number of Hansard. . • Mr Eraser.—l refer to the last number of Hansard. I have seen their pages of figures which I am positive nine-tenths of the House will bear me out in;saying were never read to the House. I hope the same latitude will be ' accorded to us, although I am not going to ask it for myself. |Mr Tanner.—lt ought to be allowed to no--1 body. 'Mr Frasei.—l quite agree with the honourable gentleman. I may say that I was horrified—l wondered how it was possible for these figures to get in. However, I am merely pointing out the disadvantages .under which we labour. ;Tv am not going to ask for any indulgence in this: respect myself, because I "have no long tables to worry the House with. At the same time, I intend referring to some of the figures'in the Statement, and I shall endeavour to do so in a manner that will not be more wearisome than I can.help. I know it is very difficult to make figures interesting, and I do not pretend to be able to do so; but I shall endeavour to state such as I give so that members will be able.to perceive their relation to the subject under discussion. : One of the first things a member is supposed to do while discussing the Budget is. to express an opinion about the surplus. I never ; denied the existence of the ■ credit balances which the honourable gentlemen on those benches brought down from,year to year. I have objected to some of the details; , I have not accepted the stated figure's jas being tho exact balance or sur- ! plus, but that there has. been ; a surplus or balance I have • admitted. Ido not see that it is the duty of the Opposi- : tiori if satisfied, after .carefully-, examining j the^ accounts, that there is a. surplus or bal- ■ ance, whatever you choose to call it, to deny ' its' existence. What object have they in doing so? The honourable member for Wai lace stated that nearly'half the members of the House was in the habit of vilifying the colony and crying it down. I do not think i such a charge was warranted as against us. iWe have heard it so stated before; but because we desire to seek and show the truth in regard to matters, is that to be deemed vilifying the colony? So far. as I am concerned, I admit at once, that there is a large credit balance this year, and I shall tell the House what I think it amounts to. First of all, -I shall refer to two or three items amongst the receipts. There is under the heading of territorial revenue a' sum' of, £66,622 for cash land sales.■•■ Now, I'coufess I am ata- loss to know whether the whole-of this is reveune or not. Ido know this: That from year to year money is borrowed and lands are purchased, from the.: Natives. I do; know, also, j that some of these lands^have been sold. Does | any one pretend to' tell me that when land is purchased from the Natives with borrowed money, if you sell that-land for cash the nroceedsof the sale is revenue? Of course It is riot. '' ' ' :\' '■' : ■'■>'O '•' ■■■•::■ '.'■■ ■ ''• ■■ ■ ■'■•.!• ;'./ ■Mr R; Thompson.r^-There are no cash' sales now. '"' ■' ''■■'■ .■• . ■ ■■• ■:..-. '■ ..-. ■ ■ Mi- 'Fraser.—The accounts show , £66,000 from cash sales. ■• ■'-' . . , ■ •An Hon: Member.—That is not for Native lands. •..'•''■'• Mr Fraser.—l am not saying it is all for Native lands. I tried to find out what portion of it was from land' that had; been purchased from the Natives. I confess I was not able to discover it, and therefore, being an unknown quantity, I eliminated it from my calculations as the amount to be deducted from the surplus. I repeat again, if any land was disposed of for cash which had been purchased with borrowed money from tbe Natives, the Treasurer has no right to regard it as current revenue. It is not revenue, and a separate account ought to be kept of it. Now, the next item we come to is the item of £69,600. I do not intend entering into a dissertation about these debentures.for sinking funds. It is an oft-told tale; we have it time and again. The honourable member for Ellesmere referred to it the other night, and I quite agree with what he said in this respect, and shall not weary the. House with it again. There are no more sinking funds as far as the colony is concerned. As far as the public creditor is concerned, .the cash has to be paid to the commissioners of the sinking funds; that is provided for by discounting a bill or debenture,, which is redeemed later 'on when the sinking funds are released on conversion of the loan. As far as this £69,600 is concerned, I only take exception to that portion which includes the sinking funds of the local bodies loans.. But it is almost, too late now to talk about that item. It was all very: well the first year or two, when the House first discovered what was be-; ing done, and when we attempted 'to bring I the Premier,to book for that which I firmly I believe four-fifths of the House consider to jbe an improper transaction. But the subI servient majority in this House i has condoned the Treasurer's conduct. There is no doubt about that. The House had it in its power to compel the Premier to restore the amount which he had so taken from that fund, and to prevent him taking any more, but the House did not choose to take that course, and, therefore, there is little use talking about it now. That is how the matter stands; it has been done with the implied consent of the House. I do not blame the Premier as much as I blame his supporters for permitting him to do it. The honourable member for Ellesmere objected to the £22,000, which was a return from the Advances to Settlers office—the repayment of a loan, in fact, being included in the surplus. I think that sum is clearly part of the revenue for the year. I was surprised to find the honourable gentleman desirous of exercising it. The former year £26,000 was debited to the revenue account—we had to lend the Advances to Settlers office £?.6,000, but for that fact the balance of £354-,000 would have been £26,000 larger. Can anyone question that the Government is therefore fairly entitled to include in the revenue for this year the repayment of £22,000 from the same office. I want to be absolutely fair, because although what I am saying now may be deemed approval of the Budget, a little later on I shall have to say something on the other 6ide. I claim to be entitled to deduct the amount of the sinking funds of the local bodies' loans —3ay, £23,300 —also an item not shown at all in the accounts—namely, the excess of liabilities for 1898 over the liabilities of 1897, which amounts to £27,128. Add these two sums ■: together, and you get £50,428, and deducting that from the £521,144 it would leave a gross surplus, including the balance of last year, of £470,616,' or a net surplus of £426.630 if you exclude the credit balance, £554,286, and the expenditure of £310.000. It may be said. How has this surplus been obtained? To a great extent it haß been obtained by over-estimating tho expenditure and under-estimating tho revenue—not so much by the former process as by the latter one. Their own tables in the Budget admit this. Of course, the Premier will reply to me, suppose the revenue did not exceed my estimate? But he knew perfectly well last session that the revenue was then exceeding his estimate. Small things will prove it. He knew, for instance, that the £22,000 was coming in—he knew the Advances to Settlern Office was going to repay that sum this year, but will you find it in the estimates of receipts for last year? Not a penny of it, and does he mean to tell me that the heads of his departments Mr Seddon. —It is a question as to whether it will be able to pay the balance this year. Mr Eraser.—You mean, I suppose, whether the Advances to Settlers Office can pay the whole of the interest for the. incom ing year, and also repay the balance of the £46,000 lent to it. That is quite another story I am discussing last year's Budget. If, however, the Premier means that the £45,000 which tho Advances to Settlers Office owes to the Government for interest up to March 31. 1898, has not been paid, we ought to have been told of it before. To know-

i ingly under-estimato revenue is a sure way ito create a surplus. The truth of the matter is this: the House was induced in 1895 to give the Government increased power of taxation, in the belief that that taxation was necessary to put the accounts fairly square. The Government were perfectly satisfied in their own minds it was going to give them a very large balance, but they insisted it would not have that effect—l refer to the revision of the,. tariff. I am not very sure —I was going to say I feel confident, but I cannot feel confident of anything in this House—l am not at all sure, subservient as the majority of the House is to the behests of the Premier, that it would have granted him power to tax the colony to the extent of producing half a million surplus. We are told by the Premier that the new tariff had little or nothing to do with the increase of the customs. I took some trouble to give my view of that aspect of the question in a speech I delivered nearly a month ago in this House on the last Impreßt Supply Bill, so shall not repeat it. My reason for referring ■to the fact at all is because the Premier in his Budget attempts a refutation of the statement that the new tariff has increased the customs revenue: he takes the increase of customs revenue during years 18_97 and 1898 and compares it with the increase of imports, during the same period, arid[winds w,ith this remark: "In my opinion the abpve isa fairly complete answer to the allegation that the increased revenue is caused by- the tariff of 1895." Is ■fc so? Does the Premier require to be told that the customs revenue is not levied on the amount imported, but upon the clearmces? He knows that in 1897 there was a very, large excess of impordts over former years, and he knows perfectly well why that was so—because importers had allowed their st ocks to run down to an abnormally low point, and they necessarily had to make large importations. But the whole of these imports did not come into consumption during that year. The figures he uses are: Average increase customs for 1897 and 1898 over 1896 equals 8.6 per cent., average increase imports 'for 1897 and 1898 over 1896 equals 12.2 per cent. But he omitted to tell the House, except indirectly, that computing the two years' revenue separately the increase for 1897 over 1896 was 10.2 per cent., against an average of 20 per cent, for the imports, and that the following year the tables were turned with 7.5 increase of customs, against 4.5 increase in the imports. Sir,-the truth of the . matter is — I am sorry to have to say it — that, like a good many other • statements in this Budget, you cannot place much re-, liance on this one. These figures have no relation to each other whatever; they are no answer to. our charge. The real answer to the charge/ that the new tariff has increased the customs revenue unduly would be the production of the return, asked for so often, but .always refused." ' Give us that' return, and not a. return simply showing one side of the question. The honourable gentleman is smiling. Of course it will not, suit. him to do so; I do not, .expect to get it—, none of us expect to. get.it. But I ...'tell, the honourable gentleman frankly Mr Seddon .--There is Mr Ward's table. Mr Eraser.—That is a one-sided affair. If t there is no truth in the statement that we have se constantly ■ made in this House and on the public platform,,then why should the Premier fear to give all the facts in regard to it? Sir,, so long, as we are denied- the clear and explicit return asked for, then so long are we on this side of the House justified in insisting upon the position. we have taken up; and let me tell the Premier this:. so long will the^ majority of the people of the colony believe what we say. Mr Seddon;—You are bound to say it is so until I prove it ip riot so. , . Mr Fraser. —Oh,- no; that would be a very unreasonable position to take up. We have quoted certain figures, alnd have made certain deductions from them, and a.'larße number of people believe that the deductions we have made are correct. •If the Premier is satisfied that we are mistaken, let him give the return' asked for, and for. my part, at any rate, I shall freely admit it if I am found to be in the wrong. ■ ■ • ■Mr Seddon.—Will you be satisfied if in my reply I give you my table? Mr Fvaser;—Oh, no; I cannot be satisfied with the Premier's way of putting the matter; and I think, Sir, before I have done I will show the House in connection with this Budget, at any rate, that it does not dp to take on trust the way the Premier puts matters.- Dd-.not misunderstand me.' I am' not even inferring-that in this: Budget there . : is any statement directly contrary to fact; j but I say that you can -, pick - out statement after statement so.wooded that the inferences which may be ; drawn therefrom are most misleading, and which will mislead not only nine out often people, but I, think 999 out of every-'IOOO.- .Of 1! refer-to those j persons who have not; at Ijand the; facilities ; for looking into and verifying the figures. That is the truth, of the matter. . Any one af ordinary intelligehce who has -these' facilities can check these statements; but 'the outside public have iieither 'the time nor the inclination to do so,, arid .when such statements are put: before, them they are; very apt to accept them as correct; Well,. I-say beforehand; that I decline to accept this re- ' turn which the Premier proposes to give us in his reply. Then, Sir, the Premier advises us not to tinker with.the tariff. Well, I can quite understand that. Why should he wish to tinker-with the tariff? It suits him admirably. It gives him a great deal more revenue than even he hoped for, so I do not suppose he is going to touch it. Not a bit of it; it is much too useful for his purposes. . I should like to refer now to what has fallen during this debate from some . former speakers. The honourable member for Ellesmere was quite right Tvhen he said that the Premier improperly endeavoured to make a point by setting forth that Sir Harry Atkinsoni.had received £288,000 as aid to revenue from sinking-fund debentures,, and was therefore in a better position than he (the Treasurer),; who only received £69,600. The Premier kno.ws perfectly well that was not so. It made no difference whatever— not one penny piece—and therein the statement. was a misleading one; and I regret that the Premier should have made it. But I am sorry to say that as the honourable member for Ellesmere proceeded with his speech I did; not, agree with a great deal that fell from him. He took upon himself to lecture both sides of the House. He lectured the Opposition' for their amendment, and he lectured the Government for sins of omission and commission, until one won- • dered to which side of the House he belonged. <;-,,;, .. •..;.'•! ■-..--. ' ' , I Mr Pirani.—The "left wing."., " , ' i Mr Eraser.—The : " left wing." Well, the "left wing" adopts a very peculiar mode of procedure if the honourable member for Ellesmere is its selected type. It appears to. me, Sir, that they speak in one way and vote in another. j Mr Pirani.—Oh, no. i Mr Fraser.—But that has happened very ! often. . J Mr Kelly.—We always vote straight. ; Mr Eraser.—l do not think so. I like1- a j man to act up to his professions. When I '■ hear a man condemning a Government or an individual I^cannot understand how he can consider .himself at all logical or consistent if he supports that Government or individual. I do not believe in that. Let me tell the honourable gentleman thiß: that those who are most respected in any Parliamentary body are those who act up to their professions. Sir, we hear charge's levied " over and over again against Ministers, by persons in this House; Now, I tell the House candidly that I do riot agree with a great number of these chargeß, for this reason, it is natural for any strong man to become autocratic, especially if he finds a number of people ready tools to do whatever he desires; of course he will become despotic, and of course he will trample on the privileges of this House; and I do not altogether blame (him for it. But I do blame those who support him, and especially do I blame those who, professing not to support him, yet go into the lobby and vote with liim. . Mr Pirani.—Who are they? Mr Eraser.—We see them" every day. Mr Pirani.—What about Bushy Park? ! Mi- Fraserj—The honourable gentleman tieed not sneer about Bushy Park. I can say quite as much as he wants to hear about Bushy. Park.. I have the .facts on my side, [.did not hesitate to get up in this House xnd state the truth in regard to it. Unfortunately, in regard to Bushy Park, for one bushel of truth yoii have a waggonful of lies, told not only in this House, but outside of it. These falsehoods are much more palatable than the truth, and therefore are believed by some. I belong to the Opposition side, Sir, and have never hesitated to say so. I boldly asserted this in the first 3peech I made on the public platform in : L 893, and I say so still, and I have never werved from it. Let me say a word or two ! in regard to what has been so aptly termed , the " bogus ", table. That subject has been :lealt with so efficiently by Captain Russell, Mr Scobie Mackenzie, and others, that I can j only echo their remarks thereon. I was : shocked to see such a table appearing in the i Financial Statement, and I hope the Premier, for his own credit's sake, will abstain in future from adopting such tactics to glorify himself. An Honourable Member.—lt is furnished by the officials. Mr Fraser.—Oh, no; there is no use telling us that. ' Either the public records and pur blue books are incorrect or this table ! is incorrect. Mr Seddon.—They all bear out the table. Mr Fraser.—There is no use talking in ■ that way. The honourable member knows ] perfectly well that it is a most misleading ■ table, and any number of statements, such : as he has mado, will not prove the contrary. 1 The facts are against him. The honourable gentleman has taken the floating debts in- ]

ourred by previous Governments, and he has charged them all upon the Atkinson Government., in order to establish a deficit for that period. Is it manly, or honest, or just to do so? 411 I can say is that if Sh Harry Atkinson had left a million and a-half of debt for the Ballance Government to liquidate, we should have heard a great deal about it before this. It would have been trotted out year after year. In the position he was placed in Sir Harry Atkinson did what any other Treasurer ought to have done. Mr Seddon.—Why did not he do it the first year he came into office—the first year after the Grey Government' Mr Fraser.—Why did not he do it? He hoped to make a better arrangement, but had after all to fund the debt and liabilities left by Grey. I now want-to point out in the statement of receipts and expenditure what appears to my mind at any rate to be an error. I drew attention to it last year. I refer to the item of interest and sinking fund. And that it is an error is confirmed by what has recently fallen from the Premier. The interest and sinking fund is put down as £1,7*1,412.- Nowi I consider that it should be £1,786,412. The £45.000 interest on the million and a-half given to the Advances to Settlers . Office is as much part of the public debt as any shilling that has ever been borrower!. The colony is responsible for it.. It is the colony, and not the Advances to Settlers Office,: that has to pay the public creditor the interest thereon. I say that £45.000 should appear on the expenditure side, and receipts from Advances to Settlers Office should appear on the credit side. We have not got it on either side of the account. ; Mr Seddon.—lt.forms no part of the public debt. Mr Fraser.—Wh... borrowed it? The Advances to Settlers Office? We know that the colony borrowed it. It is included, in the table of the public debt, page 20 of the Budget. Will any. honourable member, or can the Treasurer, point out to me a single account in the Budget which shows that £45,000 to have been paid-toithe public creditor? You will find it nowhere except in the table of the public debt, -where it is recorded as a liability to be paid. 1. say that is not a proper way in whichj to keep out accounts. This item should appear on the expenditure side of the account at airy rate, and also on the revenue side, if received. The colony has to disburse it whether the Advances to Settlers Office pays it or not. ' Last- year £67,500 —namely, the half-year's interest—was omitted, and this year £45,000' has been left out. I do not think that is right. One would almost fancy that it was done-—I do-not. say it was done— purposely to deceive; if anyone wanted to ascertain the interest of the public debt he would turn to the receipts and expenditure statement "of consolidated fund and find £1,741,000; while the true amount, is £45,000 more; At the risk of being thought hypercritical, I will now point' out some errors which appear, in the Statement. I think that' honourable members will"agree with me that. in a Financial Statement there ought to be no, errors at all—not even'printer's errors; An' error of any kind is an evidence of carelessness. Let honourable members turn to the bottom .'of page,s of the Statement. You may say this error is ajvery trivial one; but there it is. You will there find that the Customs revenue for 1895:96 is stated as £1,649,344. It should be £1,64-9,310..: Again, the Customs 'revenue for 1897 is ".stated ■as £1,818,893. It should bo £1,818,i972. Reference to the bluebooks will proye^that lam correct. If members will sit dowr? complacently and allow these things to go on you will have repetitions of these mistakes, It is the. duty of an honourable member, if he sees a mistake, to draw the attention of the House to it. In the table of. the public debt,"near the bottom of page 21, honourable members will find the last item reads thus: " Aid to Public Works and Land for Settlements' Act, 1896, and Amendment Act, 1897, £975,000;" What have the wprds "Amendment Act, 1897." to. do with it? 4t that date not a 'shilling had been borrowed -under that act. These words have no busjn'ess there. The proof of it is to be found in the statement of the Public Works Account, ''~'ihe £225,000 borrowed during. lasE year was .urider the authority of " The Aid, to Public Works Account and Land Settlement Act, 1896," arid not the Amendment Act of 1897 . , ,:■ . ' An Hon. Member.—A printer's error. Mr Fraser.—l say. that is no excuse. It shows carelessness. Errors of that kind have no right to appear j in, a Financial Statement. "' ■ '•'.■""■.•■'■ ' (To'bcconcl'udcd.)' '■'.'"■