The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1884. THE PUBLIC WORKS STATEMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1258, 28 October 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1884. THE PUBLIC WORKS STATEMENT.

The Hon. Mr Richardson delivered his long-expected Public Works Statement last Friday evening. One feature of it deserving of note is that he admitted having taken the facts and figures of the late Government, exactly in the same way that Sir Julius Vogel had to acknowledge his indebtedness to his predecessors in office when making his financial ftntement. After all the threats of fearful exposures ; the inueudoes of the Premier, and the dark, mysterious insinuations of Sir Julius Vogel about the state of things, it is comforting to find that there was nothing very wrong in the past management of the public affairs of the Colony. This can lead only ; o one conclusion and that is : that the late Government represented accurately the state of affairs, and hid nothing from the public gaze. Passing that by, and also the dreary report of last year’s work, which bears greater resemblance to the annual report of a Road Board than a ministerial statement, wo come to the future proposals of the Government. A cursory glance at this—for we have not had time to study it yet—has impressed us with the idea that it contains some common-sense practical suggestions. It says that public works should not be made by spurts, with intervals of inaction, but by steady and continuous action. We quite agree with this, but it is exactly what Major Atkinson used to say. The difference so far between the past and present Government is half a million a year. The past Government borrowed at the rate of a million a year, the present propose to borrow at the rate of a million and a-half. The next suggestion is one on which «vo perhaps look too hopefully. We are always ready fco take up anything that gives room to hope. It is that after this year the Property Tax will be abolished. The way this is to be effected is : the Consolidated Revenue will be relieved of charitable and other local expenditure to the extent of £IOO,OOO, and the onus of providing revenue for these purposes thrown on local bodies. The subject is discussed in vague uncertain language, which might mean anything, but if we mistake not the meaning of it is that greater powers will be given to local bodies, and that they must raise all the money necessary for local expenditure from local taxation. This is exactly what we suggested some time ago. When Sir Julius Vogel proposed to abolish the Property Tax and levy a Laud Tax for local expenditure only, we pointed out that it would be absurd for the Government to collect a land tax, lake it up to Wellington, and then send it back to the local bodies, and we suggested to give the local bodies the power of levying the tax themselves. This evidently is the present intention of the Government. It appears to us a very sound policy—at least it will suit us well in South Canterbury, for its real meaning is that the money which we have hitherto been sending to Wellington in the shape of property tax will after this year be allowed to our local bodies for keeping our loads and bridges in order and providing funds for our charitable institutions. However, as already stated, the vogue uncertain way in which the subject is treated, lenders it possible that we mistake its meaning, more especially as the idea is one to which wo are favorably inclined. Bat, whether the Government contemplate this or not, we feel certain nothing could be fairer or more satisfactory, for then each district would have the spending of us own direct taxation. At present we have Property Tax, Road Board Tax and County Tax, and if these could be amalgamated and locally spent, it should yield satisfactory results*

But though the proposal is to abolish the Property Tax we doubt whether it can bo done if Sir Julius Vogel’s extravagant notions are allowed to have f” 11 swing. Although Mr Richardson proposes to borrow only millions ha hns asked power to spend £2,810,280. Major Atkinson’s policy was to spend at the rare of one million a year, and it appears that that was more consistent with the dictum above referred to “ that public works should not bo made by spurts, with intervals of inaction, but by steady and continuous action.” It is impossible that this Colony can stand such expenditure ; it is absolute nonsense to say it can. What then does Mr Richardson propose but to make a spurt” which must of necessity be followed by an “ interval of inaction,” for no one outside a lunatic asylum could think that we can afford an expenditure of nearly £3,000,000 continuously for any number of years. Mr Richardson therefore stultifies his own assertion ; he shows that he either does not know what he is talking about, or thinks other people will not see it. Three millions a year cannot always be spent, and “ inaction” must necessarily set in, and when it comes we must confess that we fear its results. We feel convinced tiiat to make both ends meet the Property Tax must again be resorted to, and that it will then be much heavier than it is at present. And now what a great misfortune it is that there is not common sense enough in the House to see that if with this money that is proposed to he spent next year the Government established a State Bank we should never need to borrow money again. We could make all our railways, and carry on the business of the Colony without borrowing oi>e penny more, This may appear strange to some people, but if they reflect over the fact that there is not £2,000,000 of current com in this colony altogether, they will realise that a Government bank having £3,000,000 would have sufficient to back its notes. If the banks do all the business of the Colony with less than £2,000,000 how much business could a Government bank do with £3,000,000 in its coffers ? It is, however, useless to debate this subject until people educate themselves to form exact opinions on political subjects, and are able to elect to Parliament men of sense.