The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, DECEMBER 11.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4595, 11 December 1875, Page 2

The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, DECEMBER 11.

Mb. Richardson’s speech at Christchurch had a great deal more grit in it than the speech of Mr. Reynolds at Dunedin. It was full of substance, whereas there was literally nothing in Mr. Reynolds’ speech which could be laid hold of, except the absurd proposition that the Legislative Council should be elected from the House of Representatives. Mr. Richardson disclosed the Ministerial policy. His explanation was full, straightforward, and unambiguous. The Mayor of Christchurch, who occupied the chair, said that Mr. Richardson’s “forte was not in “ speaking, but in admininistering the “ department under his controlbut we are inclined to think, after reading the report of his speech, that it would be well for the Government if he spoke a great deal oftener than he does. But the fact is, Mr. Richardson does not speak in the House, which leads to the erroneous supposition that he cannot take his pari in debate. His diffidence will doubtless be cured in time, for we regard his election as certain. A few more sessions in the House of Representatives may work a decided change in his habits. Who can tell? “Evil communications “ corrupt good manners,” and from the silent one, Mr. Richardson may become the talking member of the Ministry. Turning to Mr. Richardson’s speech, we find one point made clear at all events, that the Government will resist to the utmost any attempt to divide the colony. This is the starting point. The unity of the colony, legislative centralisation, and administrative decentralisation : such is the Ministerial programme, and it must commend itself to the common sense of the people. Separation is a selfish cry. It is not raised at this juncture in the int; rest of the public, but in the interest of cliques which have grown fat upon public plunder. This part of the question is so well put by Mr. Richardson, that we reproduce his words from the extended report in the Lyttelton Times ; The main point of the policy that it is proposed to adopt in future is to preserve the unity of the colony at any price. I do not myself believe in any form of separation, nor do I believe in any attempt to divide the colony into two or four provinces. I believe that if this island were divided into two provinces you would have more trouble, more ill-feeling existing, and more reasonable grounds of complaint on the part of the outlying districts than there is in the smaller provinces as they now exist. We propose to centralise to the very utmost the whole legislative power in the Assembly, and to decentralise the administrative power, and to put it as far as possible into the hands of the local boards and local governing bodies. The Local Government Bill that is in course of preparation proposes to at once divide the whole colony into shires ; and these shires will be composed as far as possible of the present road boards, so far as their boundaries will suit. The question of the future electoral district boundaries will also be considered, and, as far as we can see, there will be no difficulty whatever in making the electoral boundaries co-ter-minous with those of the future shire counties. How* far the boundaries of shires ean be made co-terminous with the boundaries of electoral districts is of course a matter on which we can offer no very decided opinion. We mean, of course, in the sense of working the county system efficiently. Our present impression is that it would not work in many electoral districts, the boundaries of which could not conveniently be constituted the limits of a shire. But this is a matter of detail which can be easily dealt with. When Mr. Richardson, however, comes to deal with the future finance of the colony, and the distribution of the consolidated revenue in aid of local rates, we are forced to take exception to his policy. We do so on principle. We think the proposal to raise more revenue than is needed for purely colonial purposes is not a wise one. The Minister for Public Works says that the road boards will got from the consolidated revenue 20s. for every 20s. they raise in rates ; that is, they will get back from the Colonial Treasury,; less cost of collection and disbursement, the money they pay into the Treasury in the shape of taxes for colonial purposes. It requires but little thought to arrive at the conclusion that this is not a satisfactory procedure. Far better for the Government to provide only for its own legitimate requirements, leaving each district at liberty to levy rates to meet its own special wants. By adopting this plan it could not be said that one district was taxed for the benefit of another, as most assuredly it will be said should the financial proposal of last session bo carried into effect. If, however, the subsidy paid to road boards in aid of rates was originally contributed by the residents in each district respectively, our objection to the system is strengthened, because the people in reality lose instead of gaining by the transaction ; but if any district receives more than it has contributed to the revenue, an injustice has been done, and subsidies are paid for local improvement out of the pockets of persons who do not profit by them. And here we come to another debateable point in the Government policy as enunciated by Mr. Richardson. He said : Wo see that the shire councils must ho made attractive if they are to bo composed of good men, and they must have a reliable revenue. The revenue which they will have in the first place will be the proportion of the laud fund—the pound for pound—and they will have also the power of rating for particular works, such os bridges and reclamation works, as described in the present Abolition Bill. Wo see verv clearly that by .these queans the shire councils will,

either individually or in combination with an adjoining one, bo in a better position to carry out the larger works than the road boards are in at present. After paying the charges that are by law chargeable on the land fund, we propose that the residue shall be divided amongst the shire councils, to be expended by them, or allocated by them amongst the road boards or ridings of the shire councils, so that the whole of the land fund accruing within the present provincial districts shall be kept entirely at the disposal of the local boards. Now, with all respect to the Government, and with every desire to support their policy in the main, we think this proposal involves a vicious principle of finance. Furthermore, we conceive that it in practice would be fatal to the idea of a united colony. It would render a uniform system of colonial finance impossible, and perpetuate those inequalities in taxation under which the northern division of the Middle Island and the North Island as a, whole suffer grievous wrong. Lot us consider what the Government policy amounts to. Already, by the Public Revenues Act, the land fund of the colony is made provincial revenue. Some provinces derive large sums annually by the sale of the colonial estate — the Crown lands of the colony ; other provinces have no such source of income. These last are “the impecunious provinces that is, they are not rich through the sale of the public lands—but affluent or impecunious. They contribute in like proportion to the consolidated revenue raised for purely colonial purposes. It is clear, therefore, that under the provincial system of finance the burden of taxation in reality is heaviest upon the province which is without a land fund ; because, although the general taxation falls upon all alike, one province recoups its contribution to the colonial treasury by the sale of colonial land, while another does not. .This is certainly bad enough, and it has been a standing grievance in the North for many years ; but the Government propose, according to Mr Richardson, to intensify the evil under what we may style the provincial district system of finance, by returning out of consolidated revenue, to the provincial districts which enjoy the special advantage of a land fund, an amount equal to the land revenue for the year, to be applied to local purposes beyond the control of Parliament. This is the plain meaning of the proposal, and it is one which, in the interest of the public, we must protest against. We did so when the Abolition Bill was introduced ; we do so now while the country has time to consider the financial policy which forms part and parcel of that measure, but which the new Parliament must certainly deal with. How anything approaching an equalization of taxation is possible, under such a system of finance, we are unable to comprehend. Of course, we are well aware that this is a taking election cry in many parts of the country, more especially when a Minister of Mr. Richardson’s reputation declares that he believes the Colonial Treasurer will have available funds to pay the promised subsidies. Let us say it candidly and honestly, we do not believe the Treasury will at all respond to the enormous demands that will be made upon it ; but if it did, it would simply show that the time had come when taxation might be prudently reduced. We are very far, however, from desiring to divert the land revenue from its legitimate purpose, namely, the construction of public works for the promotion of settlement, but we altogether dissent from the doctrine that a district which is fortunate in possessing a land fund should receive in addition an equal amount from the general taxes of the colony. This is not a policy calculated to destroy provincial feeling or cement the unity of the colony. The first step towards colonial unity is to establish a system of colonial finance ; but the provincial district system of finance contemplated by the Government would render a colonial system impossible.