Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5821, 25 November 1879, Page 2

The long-promised no-confidencc debate came on last night. It was moved by Mr. Maoandrew, and it was simply to the effect that the financial proposals of the Government were unsatisfactory. This has been readily admitted by the Ministry. As the Colonial Treasurer said, Ministers are painfully aware that a large increase of taxation must necessarily bo very unsatisfactory to the Government, to the House, and to tlio taxpayer—tlio question is whether it is really necessary or not. It cannot be too often repeated that the Government have more than once stated their determination to reduce the proposed departmental expenditure to the lowest possible limit, compatible with efficiency, and have also asked the House to assist them in reducing the Estimates, which were prepared, and in part certainly also revised, by their predecessors before leaving office. Mr. Macandrew’s grievance is that he has been accused of entering into contracts for more than two millions, in anticipation of the new loan. This is not what Major Atkinson said. He asserted, and gave carefully prepared tables of figures in support of the assertion, that the late Ministry had entered into contracts and other engagements which, if they were all carried out, involved that expenditure. The figures given by Major Atkinson in his tables have never been questioned or disputed. The strongest plea urged against the late Ministry is that they represented the finance of the country as in a most flourishing condition in 1878 ; that very early in 1879 they must have known that their sanguine anticipations could not possibly be realised. But, instead of putting on the brake, and cutting down the expenditure, they continued a course of reckless extravagance, and, under what are known as authorities, &0., delayed calling Parliament together until a late date, and after it had assembled carefully kept the House and the country in ignorance of the true financial position. Sir G. Grey, who poses so often before the House as a heaven-born financier, but who never by any chance ventures to enter into details when attacking an opponent’s finance, enunciated his scheme of future taxation last night. It was based upon the simple principle of a progressive land tax calculated according to acreage ; so much was to be levied in the £ on a man who held 500 acres, an increased amount per acre on holders of 1000 acres, and further increases for every 1000 acres held by individual owners. He also advocated an income tax on a similar graduated scale, with exemptions for al incomes earned by mental or physical work. In addition to this he proposed a reduction in the Governor’s salary, and the abolition of all payment to Legislative Councillors. It is especially worthy of note that all these remarkable propositions were carefully kept out of sight during the two years while ho was in office and might have introduced them.

Mr. Maoandrew’s speecli, in bringing forward the no-confidence motion, was certainly neither brilliant nor effective. He practically admitted the extravagance which had prevailed, and had been allowed to continue unchecked until he left office. His proposals, like Sir G. Greys, for alleviating the financial pressure, smacked of a haphazard, rough-and-ready spirit of reform, which none but financiers out of office ever dream of indulging in. Mr. Montgomery's speech as the seconder of the resolution was simply a failure ; it lacked force, energy, and point, and was the dullest speech on an important occasion that we ever remember to have listened to. Public opinion is to the effect

that a no-confidenoe debate at this stage of the session, even though couched in such ambiguous language as Mr. Macandiiew’s resolution, is simply a waste of time, and is not in the least likely to lead to any definite results. This is the fourth no-confidence debate within the short space of less than five months. The public are tired of them, and the House is not at all likely to submit patiently to any further waste of time. The financial proposals of the Government certainly need revision before they become law, and the Government have shown themselves ready and willing to accept advice and to consult with members on both sides as to what modifications are advisable. We trust that the no-confidence debate will bo short, sharp, and to the point.