FINANCIAL DEBATE.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 18, Issue 60, 26 July 1907, Page 5

FINANCIAL DEBATE.

The debate on the Financial Statement Was opened in the House on Tuesday evening. The Leader of the Opposition was the first speaker. His address was a very Vigorous one. He reminded Members of the loug struggle he had maintained to secure the reform in the auditing of public accounts. It had been opposed by the Government for years, but now there had been a right-about-face, and

the proposals had become law. So, too, With the sinking fund, which the Opposition had advocated for years. This had now become law. The Opposition had supported the encouragement of thrift by means of national annuities, and the Government had adopted the principle. He hoped this Session to see it become law. There was still a reform to push through, that of preventing borrowed money being used for maintenance of roads. Advocates of workers’ dwellings would recollect that he (Mr Massey) moved the ; proposal as an amendment to the Advances to Settlers Act, and that was the reason why it was brought down In the form it now stood on the statute book. “ Then I come to the land question,” continued Mr Massey. What a change had come over the spirit of the

icenel It was just a year ago since the Minister of Lands laid his proposals before Parliament, when tho flag, which was now at half-mast, the black flag of leasehold— (laughter)—was hoisted. By Including clauses which made the freehold possible, by admitting that the option to purchase should remain in Connection with those lands which were not intended to bo sot apart as endowments, by admitting that Crown tenants under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure should be given tho option to purchase, the Government had admitted that the Opposition were right, and that they Were wrong. He knew that the conditions attaching to the latter proposal

Were unjust, unfair, and unworkable— Bud he believed they were intended to be unworkable—but in face of the facts ho had mentioned he thought no one would dispute that no Parliamentary Opposition ever stood in ft better position than hip Majesty’s Opposition to-day. The Minister’s speech was on exactly the same lines as those delivered during his recent tour. He added;—“lt is paid that we have thrown up the pponge because we have offered the freehold to the lease-in-perpetuity holders. What was our position when the first Bill was brought down and when it came from Committee ? It was contemplated In connection with every one of those Jeases-in-porpetuity that the freehold phould bo given in connection with them.' ’ The only difference between the original and the present scheme was that lease-in-perpetuity tenants, instead of having to go into the open market to pecure their freehold, would get it under arbitration, which would decide the price at the present yaluo,