MR GILLIES AT AUCKLAND.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 26, 22 July 1871, Page 5

MR GILLIES AT AUCKLAND.

• [lndependent, July 20.] We referred in a recent issue to the doleful picture of New Zealand, as drawn by Mr Gillies, the Superintendent of Auckland. One would infer on reading it that the case of New Zealand is both hapless and hopeless. " The extravagant expenditure of the General Government" is dwelt upon in no measured terms, but, as we have lately shown, such general assertions go for nothing. If, as Mr Gillies says, " Our civil servants have increased to an almost countless horde, and the cry is still they come," how easy is it then for him to specify what civil servants are superfluous: surely in " an almost countless horde" it were easy to select a few ! We have recently gone over all the great public departments, and the economy and efficiency discovered in their administration have elicited much surprise in certain quarters. We are glad to see that our articles are being extensively reprinted, as they must dispel much ignorance on a very important matter. We have shown, on the authority of figures that cannot lie, that this foolish rhodomontade about the civil service is altogether uncalled for. Mr Gillies himself, in this very speech, shows most clearly how great has been the march of economy. "In 1856, the cost of collection of the Customs revenue," he says, " had reached fourteen per cent.," while this year it does not exceed four and a half per cent ! He does not tell his bearers that in spite of our extraordinary number of ports, owing to our extended coast line, and in spite of the sparseness of our population, it takes less per cent to collect the Customs revenue in New Zealand than in the most favored in these respects of all the British colonies. Taking our circumstances into account, we hesitate not to say that the cost of collecting the Customs revenue is less per cent, in New Zealand than in any other country whose statistics are published.

We regret to see that Mr Gillies gives utterance again to the erroneous statement we have already so fully disproved that we are borrowing money to pay the interest on our debt. As Mr Gillies contents himself with a simple assertion, we shall, for the present, answer it by a simple denial. Mr Gillies implies throughout his speech that our system of government being so peculiar has brought upon New Zealand peculiar disasters. We are driven to the conclusion, as he unfolds the roll of woe, lamentation, and weeping, written within and without, that we are in a peculiarly sad plight, and that our case is unparallelled in the history of colonies. But not ouly are we the most unfortunate of colonies ; for us alone there is no ray of hope. Our malady is strange, chronic, and incurable, and capable at the best, if the proper physician could be found, of only a little alleviation. Now, not to go farther than the neighbouring colony of Victoria, which happily has no native or defence department, let us see what the treasurer of that exceptionally prosperous colony stated a few days ago in public. His words are, " Within fifteen months the surplus left in the treasury of over £250,000 has been used up, and a deficiency admitted by the late treasurer of over £340,000 !" Does not this show what he elsewhere calls "an exceptional period of depression" from which New Zealand could not possibly hope to escape ? Like our neighbours, we have suffered, but so far as our information goes, in a less degree. Our case is bad enough : why seek to make it worse than it is ? Relatively we have come through this exceptional period well : why dash our hopes by hinting that our misfortunes are peculiar and the result of our peculiar institutions ?

The disingenuous special pleading by which Mr Gillies tries to excuse his neglect of the Thames goldfields is, we should hope, too transparent to deceive any one. Of the system of government by delegation of the Governor's powers to Superintendents, he says "A more pernicious system I do not know. The result is that nobody is responsible to the people." We may agree with him

so far, but we should like to know if there was anything in this " system" fco justify the Superintendent and Provincial Government taking the revenue derived from these gold fields, and spending it elsewhere. What has the "system" to do with appropriating almost exclusively the money derived from miners' rights, business and general licenses, and gold duty to the development of other parts of the province ? Is «• no one responsible" for the stoppage of public works on a gold fields that would have employed all the unemployed, and by developing its auriferous resources on a large and comprehensive plan have saved hundreds of thousands of pounds being expended on desultory and useless undertakings ? The system may be a bad one; but is it the cause of the great evils of which the Thames people so loudly and justly complain ? The whole of this part of his speech is an ingenious (but we fear not ingenious enough) " ignoratio elencJii." The legislation may not be " perfect," but what about the administration? Turn we again to Victoria where this " system" does not obtain. There, the Governor, i.e., the Government, take direct charge of the gold fields; there is no delegated authority. Here we have all that Mr Gillies seems to desire—no divided authority—no uncertain responsibility ; then, surely, we may expect to see fully developed the advantages of a " perfect system of Government." The following extract from the Treasurer's recent speech there will dispel the illusion that a perfect system of government is all that is required :—" The waterworks of this country have been shamefully—l use the word advisedly — shamefully carried on. The money that, has been expended on these waterworks, amounting, as it does, to close upon a million pounds, has been in" the main wasted. Not one of these works has been utilised, not one shilling of revenue has been got from them, the whole department is paralysed, an'' jjwone knows at this moment that any one of the works can or will be utilised."

Can any further proof be desired that a perfect system of Government is not an unerring specific against bad go verning, and is not the panacea for our political ills that Mr Gillies would have us believe.