Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1886. Falling the Budget to Pieces.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1840, 4 June 1886, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1886. Falling the Budget to Pieces.

On Thursday night Major AtWTuson, the Leader of the Opposition, made a trenchant and incisive attack upon the proposals of the Government as set forth in the Financial Statement. With respect to the surplus of £37,000 which the Government alleged to exist, Major Atkinson proved by facts and figures that such surplus was purely mythical. "How,” he asked, 11 was this surplus obtained ? The Treasurer said ‘ the expenditure was less by £39,000.” And then he went on to say that the principal reduction had been in subsidies to local bodies. And so it was, for the amount due on those subsidies was £39,000. (Hear hear). But a glance at other estimates showed there was no [saving. In defence, a saving was stated of £15,000, but they were not told that £25,000 was transferred to loan. Now on page 2of the Statement they found this ‘ I have to give an explicit denial to the statement that liabilities were nnusnally held over to swell the surplus.’ Now, that was very satisfactory ; but not a word of it was borne out by the tables. How was it that the local bodies were not given their subsidies, which were short by £II,OOO. The Inangabau County got £IOOO, but the agricultural settlers, who wanted their money when the weather was fine, had asked in vain. He had calculated the amounts dne to local bodies, and bis statement would be found correct. He estimated that at least £15,000 which should have been paid had not been. Then the Treasurer said, ' the liabilities at thej close of the year were not more Jthan ordinarily was the case, and the advances had been brought-more closely to charge.’ Now, the liabilities for this year on the tables attached were £lßo,ooo—while those of the previous year were not £161,000 —that was an increase of £29,000.” It is perfectly clear from the foregoing statements that Sit Julius Vogel’s alleged surplus of £37,000 is all moonshine. Major Atkinson used many additional facts and figures in support of bis contention, but as the non-existence of tbe 11 surplus” has been made self evident, it is unnecessary to deal ' further with this part of the subject. Then Major Atkinson referred to the question of the revenue. He feared the revenue had beeu over estimated ; that Customs and railways would show a deficiency of at least £50,000 on the Treasurer’s estimate. But in order to cover reckless expenditure the revenue had been over-estimated. Tbe result, then, bs oame to, was that revenue would not cover expenditure. Yet they had got again this year £12,500 to be paid out of loan in aid of defence, &o. They ware getting back to that sort of thing. £200,000 was set down for permanent harbor defence, and this little £12,000 odd was really to pay the permanent force. It was a mete sham to say that it was for defence, and misled tbe House. Notwithstanding all this, the hon gentleman pro. posed to abandon the Properly Tax. Major Atkinson next referred to the assertion of the Colonial Treasurer “ that there would be £BOO,OOO free to be voted on other purposes than railways, such as buildings, purchases of Native Lands, Roads, &o.” On this point Major Atkinson remarked that tfie Colonial Treasurer bad not taken inti account the existence of outstanding liabilities to the amount of £1,094,000, and that therefore the £BOO,OOO was not really available for the purpose specified. Major Atkinson further contended that tbe alleged reductions in expenditure had never been made ; that the great scheme lor the conversion of stock had not secured the expected results ; and that the public works proposals, when closely examined, were found to be of a most extravagant character. Describing tbe general policy disclosed in the Financial Statement, Major Atkinson remarked : —” That policy was a hand-to-mouth policy; a time-serving policy; a policy which cried " peace, peace,” where there was no peace. He believed the colony would not accept it. What did we want ? We wanted to face tbe question of retrenchment. Unices we were prepared to deal trenchantly—and this session—with tbe question of retrenchment, we should have a great increase of taxation next year. If we did not determine plans.and set our scheme going, next year wc should be in a bad position ; for it must be remembered that if this Statement was to be given effect to £200,000 would have to be provided for in interest. This question of public work} must be looked into ; we should insist on the Government giving information as to what works were tbe most necessary and likely to bereproductiye ; we should see that no new work was entered on that would not be reproductive, or that was not a necessary work. In conclusion, Major Atkinson said if we did turn our minds to the question of what works were wanted in the interests of the country, and -* party (hear, hear), then we had not oi *«« our finances were capable nothing to fear ; w nt if we were of meeting tbe engagements. - - ‘ v * to go on with these great schemes —it mo colony was " to have another chance ’’—then people would leave us instead of coming to us.” There is no doubt that Major Atkinson’s speech will go far towards opening the eyes of the colonists to tbe real character of the proposals contained in the Financial Statement. The speech made a powerful impression in the House, and the reply of Sit Julius Vogel was felt to be very weak. As we write, the debate on the subject has been adjourned, but before it comes to an end the Financial proposals of the Government will receive further and equally sharp criticism. 1