The Financial Debate. SPEECH BY MR GOLDIE. ATTACK ON THE GOVERNMENT.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 402, 14 September 1889, Page 5

The Financial Debate. SPEECH BY MR GOLDIE. ATTACK ON THE GOVERNMENT.

Mr D. Goldie, M.H.K., delivered an admirable speech during the recent Financial Debate in the House, in the course of which he said :—: — In the introductory remarks of the Financial Statement we have this statement made by the Premier : " The policy of retrenchment . and strict economy has produced the result which sooner or later was bound to follow ;" aud then he winds up with a paragraph telling us, " We must be doubly careful now, lest with the return of increased prosperity there should bo a return to unwise or unnecessary expenditure." That is the advice given to us by the Premier in his opening statement in his financial proposals. To review the advice that the Premier has given us here, we ought to go back twelve month 8 and see how far the Premier has carried out the policy he propounded and the promises he made to the House at that time. Honourable members will remember that during the contest which culminated in our coming here it was apparent that one of the great needs of the country was retrenchment, and we all came here pledged, at all event?, to do our very best to bring r9trenchment about. During last session a motion was made asking the Government to take back their estimates and to make reductions to some thing like £100,000. Now, after the House had discussed the question for some time, it was thought to be unwise to press it to a vote because of complications that were likely to arise ; and, having received the promise of the Premier that he would make all the retrenchment that could possibly be made, we withdrew the amendment In the estimates that have been brought down this session, instead of the reduction that was anticipated, the Premier has turned right round, and has determined to make an increase in the salaries of some officers who are already overpaid. Well, now, it appears to me that there is just one thing which is absolutely needed if we are to have any reduction at all, and the Premier himself recognised this fact, because he told us that he could not make the reductions which ought to be made until this House should have passed what he calls the Civil Service Reform Bill. That, he said, is a Bill that is absolutely needed before he can make the retrenchment that is required to be made. Well, now, if that is needed, then it appears to me that the proper person to bring in that Bill is the Premier. Private members of this House could not possibly bring in a Bill of that kind with any hope of carrying it ; but the Government could do it without any difficulty. And I may say here that the Government pledged themselves, not only this session, but in previous sessions, to bring in that Bill. In the Financial Statement of last year we have a statement made by the Premier with respect to this Bill ; so that at thattime, as now, there was underconsideration the Civil Service Reform BilL . . . And now, after the expiration of fiftyfour days — nearly eight weeks — that Bill is nob before the House, notwithstanding the evident desire to have it here, because on two previous occasions already this session the honourable member for Gladstone and myself have asked questions on this subject, and have been told that this Bill is coming down. Here is the Bill prepared on the 29th May last year, and we have been told again this session that it was already prepared, and yet, so far, we have not been able to- see the Bill which the Premier and the Government declare to be absolutely necessary if we intend to have the economical administration which the country desires. An hon. member : It was blocked by the Representation Bill. Mr Goldie : — An honourable gentleman says it was blocked by the Representation Bill. Well, there was plenty of time before the Representation Bill came down, and there has been plenty of time since, for this Bill to be in the hands of honourable members, so that they might peruse it and be prepared to give an intelligent vote upon it when it comes before the House. Now, it may be well to ask why this Bill has not come before the House. I do not know that I am a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I think I can state the reason that Bill is not here. I think the reason why the promises of the Premier have been so often broken — and it absolutely shakes the faibhof one in any statements made by the Govern ment — the reason this Bill is not before the House is simply that the power of the Civil Service is too great. Statements have been made outside, and they have been repeated in this House, that the country is governed not by the Government, but by the Civil Service. There is no doubt about that at all. I do not mean by that that it is governed by the Civil servants receiving small salaries, and who work hard for tham, but I refer to the heads of the departments If we want further proof of the general correctness of what I have been saying, I think it is afforded by the appointment of the Railway Commissioners. We determined last year, much against the will of many honourable members, to hand over the control of the railways to Commissioners ; but we never anticipated that the persons who were to take charge of our railways were already in the service of the country. Notwithstanding the feeling of the country on this question, the Government during the recess handed over the railways to three gentlemen who were in the Civil Service. This shows clearly that the Ministry are not the rulers of this country, but that the heads of departments are our rulers. Once or twice during the session the Government have been asked who is the Engineer-in -Chief, and the reply has been that there is no such officer. We know, however, that there are two officers who are aspiring w the position, and are bringing influence to bear on the Government to appoint them to the office. But the Government seem to be in this position : that they dare not appoint either one of them. These two gentlemen are kept on — while they are waiting for an appointment to be made for them — at considerable eosfc to the taxpayer. . . . 'n the Financial Statement reference is made to the expenditure on education, and the Premier has stated that oub of the sum of £30,000 set apart for the erection of school-buildings he was compelled to take some £6,000 because, of the increased attendance at the schools. The leader of the Opposition congratulated the country upon the fact of the increased attendance at the public schools because it showed that the population of the country is increasing, and that our schools are filling. lam prepared to agree with the honourable gentleman on this question, and I think it would be a good thing for this country if our schools were so filled that; we should be compelled from time to time to increase the building-accommodation provided that those children are retained in the colony after they are educated. Unfortunately, that is not so. In the Financial Statement we are told that, out of Borne 9,500 persons who left this colony

for Australia during the last two years, some 4,500 of them were males over fourteen years of age. . . . Whon the railways were removed from Government control it was supposed that the returns would be much greater than they could be whilst the management of the railways was under the influence of political pressure ; but the report of the Commissioners shows that this is quite a mistake, and that our railways are very unsatisfactory as compared with those of other colonies. The Victorian railways encourage trade, and not only do this but return large profits to the revenue. For instance, in 1886, after paying all interest on cost of construction and charges on loans, the Victorian railways handed over to the revenue £61,483 ; in the following year 1887, after paying all interest, they handed over £40,457 ; and last year they had a balance, after paying interest on cost of construction, and other expenses, of £75,307. This balance last year was absorbed through the Windsor railway accident, in connection | with which they had to pay £128,000 com- , pensation ; but, leaving out that unfortunate circumstance, they had a clear profit at the end of the year of the above amount. The only thing, it appears to me, there is to be said in favour of the Railway Commissioners is that, whereas all other departments in the Government service require a large amount for " Contingencies "—and we see £60,000 and £70,000 constantly put down in the estimates, under various departments, for " Contingencies " — the Railway Commissioners, whose department in past years r,had the same thing, can do without ' ' Contingencies " altogether. .... I was astonished when I heard the honourable member for Wanganui talking about spending £300,000 a year, and telling us, after making that statement, that we should at once go on and carry all these railways to a paying pomt — which simply means going tothe London market and borrowing largely to carry on. And, after carrying them on to a paying point, you will find that you have not satisfied the demand for further money. But, this being the policy of the Opposition, as declared by their leader, I shall not be found supporting them. The only chance there is of saving the country is to cease from borrowing and to rely on our own resources. . . . There is one point in the Financial Statement which needs very special attention and investigation, and that is the depopulation which is going on in connection with thi3 country. Ib seems to me that during the last seven or eight weeks that we have been sitting here we have given no attention whatever to this very important question. According to the statement of the Premier, 9,580 people have left New Zealand for Australia during the last two years, and, of those who j have left, 4,476 have been males over fourteen years of age. That is the statement put forth in the Financial Statement ; and ' I believe that during the previous two years another nine thousand persons left the colony, making in all some eighteen thou- \ sand souls ; and yet a state of things of that alarming character has not been discussed by the House ! The Premier himself has given some little attention to it, and has told us that the reason for this exodus is simply the cessation of our borrowing-and-spending policy. When the honourable member for Parnell proposed to bring the matter prominently before the House a few days ago, he was told that ifc was confined to Auckland, and that we should leave the population in other parts to take care of itself. Itisveryevidenfctbat the Government .have not given the attention to the matter that they ought to have done, for it can be shown that it is not only in Auckland that this depopulation has been going on. On the 30th July the Hauroto left Wellington for Sydney with forty-five steerage passengers ; and on the 2nd August the Centennial left Dunedin with forty-two steerage passengers : while telegrams from Auckland show that the last three steamers leaving that place for Sydney took away some four hundred pa&sengers. It shows that the people are so tired of the country, because of its exces&ive taxation, that they are glad to get away from it. If steamers are going to take away people from the colony as they have been doing during the last two months, wo shall find we are losing a great many more than we can afford to lose. We are told that we should not discuss this question here lest we should injure the, credit of the colony, but, like the ostrich, which, we are told, when hotly pursued, buries its head in the sand and thinks that it is lost to the sight of its pursuers, it is our proper course to bury these facts in the &and, and we may imagine that those who are looking at us from outside will not see our difficulties. But we cannot ignore the fact that this depopulation is going on throughout the country. It is not a fact that Auckland alone has been suffering from depression and depopulation. There are other parts of New Zealand besides Auckland where this depression exists, and, although it has not come prominently before the House, there is no doubfc about it that it is there. I may take Canterbury as one of those districts that have suffered. This month in Canterbury a very largo amount has been paid in providing work for the unemployed, andalso in the past in connection with charitable aid. In 1883 Canterbury received £13,409, out of a total of £34,360 ; and in 1884 she received £14,282, out of £34,648 set apart for the whole colony ; again, in 1886-87, out of I £20,000 voted for subsidies to local bodies to provide work for the "unemployed," Christchurch received £13,347, and Otago £6,773. In 1887, whilst the average number of " unemployed " engaged each month between, February and October was in Auckland 20, in Otago 132, and in Canterbury 180, there were at onetime in the latter district as many as 246. During the years 1886 and 1887, the amount spent in the Christchurch workshops for -work performed for districts outside of the Canterbury Provincial District was £44.483. Therefoi'e, when we are told that this depression exists in Auckland and not elsewhere, I say that the figures I have produced ahow that the opposite is the case, and that intense depression exists in other parts of the colony. With respect to the Public Works Statement, I do not propose to make any remarks, except to say that a great mistake has been made in not 1 spending the amount at our disposal. Just ac long as there is £100,000 in the Treasury to spend on public works, just so long will a great Government department and a large army of officials be kept up, in anticipation of what may turn up. . . . It appears to me that while this depopulation is going on, and the people are leaving the colony by hundreds weekly, and while lahour is cheap, and the people could be kept in the colony by spending this money, it would be far better to make up your mind and push on your various works as speedily as possible. With iespect to the amendment of the honourable member for Parnell, lam here to vote for it. I came to this House pledged to the abolition of the property tax, and I think it is altogether absurd for the Premier or any Minister to try to make us believe that a land and in come tax would not produce the necessary amount. We do not want to produce an excessive amount. What we want to do is to relieve the people of taxation to the fullest extent, and then, by strict retrenchment, make both sides of our ledger balance. I have heard a srreafc man y nersons say fchnfa

cannot; be done; bub those who say it are those who have nothing to be taxed ; while those who, after ten or fifteen years of steady industry, have managed to lay by something, are those who feel the burden of this taxation. Those who talk in the other direction are those who have nothing at stake in the country, and to them it is a matter of no great importance how the people are taxed or what great departments are kept up by the Government. There are two ways of making- ends meet. There is retrenchment, and there is keeping up the taxation that we have now got. We have had enough of taxation. The Governmant last year did a little in the way of retrenchment, and they should continue until they have cut down everything to the last shilling, and then when they have done their best in that direction, the country will be ready to respond to their appeal in the way of additional taxation, but not till then.