Financial Debate.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6089, 19 November 1887, Page 4

Financial Debate.

At 8 o'clock this evening Mr Izard was at last given an opportunity to deliver himself on the Financial Statement. It will be remembered that Mr Izard moved the adjournment of the debate on Friday last, and for a solid hour the unhappygentleman had'be?n walking about with hie maiden speech in his brain, or at any rate in his pocket. "Whether this loDg drawn- j out agony had affected his voice, or from some other course, it is certain that hebegan in tones that were perfectly inaudible at half-a-dozen paces from him. In vain cry after cry of "speak up "adjured him to raise his voice. In vain hon members interposed the plaintive " we can't hear," for which Sir G. Grey is so preeminently celebrated. Mr Izard gave, comparatively speaking, no encouragement to the patience oi his audience, and in consequence was soon left to speak to a bare quorum and a despairing Press gallery. So far as could be ascertained his speech consisted of a vehement attack on Mr Fisher's education proposals, and a strong appeal to the House not to drive 20,000 children from the State schools. He regretted that the Minister for Mines did not seem yet to have quite grasped the scope of his duties. He, to some extent dissented from the Government plan for reforming the Legislative Council, bat finally announced his intention of giving the Ministry a general support. Mr Peacock; who rose after Mr Izard, has the advantage over that gentleman of possessing a fine resonant voice. He has i not the advantage, however, co far as his education views are concerned, at any rate from your point of viewj for he quite agrees with Mr Fisher's reforms, and wants, moreover, to charge feea in standards giving scholarships by way of redressing teachers. Mr Peacock fell fonl of the two millions to be borrowed next year, and objected strongly to the funding of the deficit. He pointed out very sensibly that if £400,000 were to be paid off at the rate of £40,000 a year that would take ten years at least, and seeing the instability of New Zealand Governments, he doubted very much, to say the least of it, of the scheme's permanence. Mr Peacock stated his preference for a Land and Income-tax over a Property-tax, and after a fluent speech, sat down after playing the part of candid friend number six among the Ministerial speakers of the debate. Mr Hutchison, Mr Bryce's conqueror, came next, and eocn gave ample explanation of the probable causes of Mr Bryce's defeat. Mr Hutchison, in Bhort, showed himself a far finer speaker than the conqueror of Parihaka, and showed, moreover, a close acquaintance with local government reamrements, and with certain aspects of* Colonial finance. When speaking low Mr Hutchison's voice is hoarse, and far from being either distinct or pleasing. But as he raises it, it appreciably clears and gains in both-volume and power. After ridiculing Freetrade in Native lands, he went. on to criticise in detail' the reduction of the subsidies to Local Bodies. In one way or another the | Premier proposed to deprive the Local j Bodies of £160,000 a year. His saving was a saving for the Treasury, but it meant in effecta Property-tax for the people by means of rates, which would have to be levied i instead ; which were a tax on real property without one penny of an exemption. After emphatically declaiming against the vagueness of the Government's retrenchment, Mr Hutchison closed a Bhort but vigorous speech amid well-earned applause. Amongst other good things he i said this, when speaking of the one Ministerial trump card, retrenchment: " Sir, it 1b not a policy, it is a necessity." Mr Macabtetdb referred at some length to Sir J. Vogel's speech on the Financial Statement, and eaid his criticism on the Government polioy was utterly fallacious. Mr Lottghbey was surprised that the Government considered the depression under which the Colony was suffering of so little importance that they proposed to defer any relief to an indefinite period. He thought they should certainly bring down a revised Tariff this session. The consequence of delaying the revision of the Tariff would be that capitalists would go elsewhere to invest their money, and the settlement of the land would suffer. Mr Graham was greatly disappointed at the speeches of the debate, especially from the Opposition side. He thought Sir J. Vogel's speech on "the Financial Statement was two hours wasted in a vain attempt at showing his (Sir J. Vogel's) Budget was superior to the present one. Mr Blake was glad to find such large redactions being made in the Governor's and Ministers' salaries. As to the proposed reduction in the honorarium he wag not opposed to a reduction to £150, but he considered the same sum should be given to the Legislative Council, or there was a likelihood of the Bill not being passed by the Council. He had no fault to find, on the whole, with the proposals of the Gov- ! ernment, and he had not come there to raise a factious opposition against any party. He did not believe anything like £60,000 could be saved in the education vote without injuring many schools, but the expense could be reduced in a graduated scale. As to the Tariff question, he did not think it could be altered at once. He had no wish to force the Government in this matter, bat he did consider this Tariff should be revised withoutunnecessary delay. He disapproved of Railway Boards, contending that the Government could not afford to get competent men, and that it | was the system of making political rail- ! ways that wanted alteration. He objected to borrowing, but would s?ive his support i to any Government who would honestly I administer the affairs of the Colony. I Major Jackson advocated Freetrade in Native lands, and held that the Natives should pay tax on lands for which they held down grants, but no such taxation should be made till it was ascertained to whom the land belonged. He thought Ministers should be left to carry out retrenchment in their own way, as with them would iest the responsibility. He agreed with the Government policy, and would support them so long as they carried out that policy. Mr Walker moved the adjournment of the debate. Agreed to. The House rose at 1.15 a.m.