THE INDICTMENT OF THE MINISTRY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2074, 19 July 1890, Page 1

THE INDICTMENT OF THE MINISTRY.

. (Speech;deli?ered by Mr Hutchison, M.H.Riin fcheiHouseof Representatives, July 3,> 1890.)

i (Continued.)

We shall find, as.we look through it, that, while it suggests that'the" colony is sound, it yet'introduces us to, I believe, a difficult future, which this Ministry is unable to adequately deal with. First, let me refer to something which occurred this afternoon when the honourable member for Pbnsdnby was speaking.. He referred, as I understood, to a table attached to the Financial Statement—No 20, 'page 57 —which is evidently intended for use at the general election. It purports to show the expenditure in 1886-87 as compared with that of 1889 90—in other words, the expenditure of the StoutVogel Government compared with that of the Atkinson Government. It is a statement which should be carefully and closely scrutinised. It indicates that there is a decrease in the public | expenditure betweenthe two periods efc £291,410. But there are some items which ought to be corrected. Firstly, it appears by this; table! that the ,• tGovernmenfc take credit for. decreasing the expenditure in respect. of local bodies. That may be a good argument for those honourable gentlemen who think it is the proper thing to throw upon local bodies the burdens which were previously borne by the consolidated revenue. There is a sum of £42,377 for subsidies which the colonial revenue no longer contributes, ! but which, being withdrawn, has left a [ void in the finances of the local bodies, I and means that there must have been fresh local taxation imposed to an equivalent; amount, or ' else j local works must to that extent have been stopped. The next item that I would call attention to is that under the head of Defence. The general decrease which is taken credit for includes the sum of £12,500 previously paid out of loan; but it must be remembered that in 1887 a large expenditure was taking place in connection with expensive fortifications which were then being pushed forward, and that such an anomalous state of things has not since prevailed. A third item for which credit is taken relates to the rates on Crown lands, amounting to £24,471. That, Sir, is also misleading, because, although saved to the colony, it is thrown upon the local bodies, by which works previously carried on must be ; provided for by other means or loft! undone. Then I come to a point which is somewhat significant—it is one which shows that the table is not a fair or correct comparison of the respective periods. There is no,amount carried out in respect of " interest" in either of the columns which show " increase'' or " decrease!." Yet there has"' been an actual increase of £254,727. Why was not that item carried out in these accounts, when they are prepared for the purpose of comparison ? Is the loan expenditure, for which that interest is paid, wholly lost to the colony ? Surely, if a trader raises additional capital to extend bis businesss, he is presumed to get a benefit and is bound to take into account, as part of his current expenditure, the interest he has to pay on that increased capital ? If these amounts are added together—the subsidies to local bodies, the anomalous expenditure on defence, the rates on Crown lands, and the interest paid upon the increase of the public debt—-they will be found to amount to £334,075; and, instead of there being £291,410, as claimed, in favor of the present Administration, there is a balance against it of £42,665. The proof of this is clearly shown by adding to that balance the sayings which the present Government claim to have effected, amounting to £291,410. 1 do not know whether the occupants of the Treasury benches claim to have acquired a monopoly of retrenchment, or desire to say that no other Government, than theirs could have effected that retrenchment. There is some indication, certainly, of such an assumption in the Financial Statement, where the Colonial Treasurer says that, if so-and-so had not happened, then the deficit would at present be some £600,000. Is it not childish to talk in that way? Does any one on the Government benches presume to say that no Ministry except the present could have effected retrenchment? Dare it be said that it would have been possible for any Government, after tbe last general election, to do less than has been done in this matter? I admit that the present Ministry have done something for which they are entitled to credit, and we on this side of the House desire to give them that credit; but to suggest' that no other could have done bo well or better is to say that which is perfeotly absurd. I claim, then, for the purposes of comparison, that to the balance I have shown of £42,665, as the correct comparison between 1887 and 1890, should

be added the £291,410 of saviuge effected. . The total is £334,075, a sum which; substantially agrees with the additional taxation which the present Government, have, imposed on the colony. The table—No 29—should therefore be revised. With reference to the '' surplus," I trust we shall hear no more about it. After the Bpeech of the honourable member for Waipa, I think that, the , Government may as well drop it. The claim to a "surplus" was a-bubble..-from .the, beginning And now I wish to. say a word or, two with reference to what the honourable member for Ponsonby. said as to the attitude and criticism ot the Opposition. He deprecated any depreciation of the colony, and seemed to imply that it was wrong to criticise in aDy way adversely, the views expressed in the Financial {Statement. Sir, I think that no criticism in. that .direction on this- side ,_ of the House has been so trenchant as the criticism we have just listened! Jto from the honourable member,ofor,i,W;aipa, and I do not suppose,that any criticism on this side will go further than his has gone. We de not wisn to depreciate the fair fame of the colony. The stake—if I may use the word—of :those on this side, of the House is certainly as great as that of the honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House, I do not know that we can compete with them in respect of lands and money, but, although a minority in this House, we will not defer to any majority on the other side in our concern for the future of the colony ; and it is out of the way and entirely wrong to suggest that any criticism we may offer of the figures of the Financial Statement will be other than the performance of a painful duty to our constituents. J'he Statement ends with an appeal that we,shall so act as to "leave this land a noble inheritance to our children." Surely.we are unanimous in that hope: iodeed, our endeavour will be to emulate any party in this House in the effort to hand down that heritage to our children as unimpaired as it is possible to do. What we complain of is the undue adulation not of the colony, but—of the Administration which is doing so much to; damage its prospects. I referred just now to some increases, both of taxation and of expenditure, which are threatened in the Financial Statement, and I pointed out that, as I understood it, the position of the Opposition is that they intend to resist any increase of taxation, or continuance—if you will —of exceptional taxation, and that they intend, on the other hand, not only to resist any increase in the expenditure, but to insist oo a substaptial decrease. Here is tbe position of the Consolidated Fund at the beginning of the present financial year, as set forth by the Statement itself: Tbe Treasurer starts with a credit balance on the ordinary revenue of £36,569 It is well, however, to remember that the liabilities at the Bame date were £127,151. On the other side, he admits a deficit in the Land Fund of £45,716. Starting thus, be expects to,end the year with a surplus of £48,152; but in the same Statement will be found the following words . "In Defence there is a small increase; but the Government are of opinion that the provision made is not sufficient for sueh a force as our defence works require, and it is tbe intention of my colleague the Defence Minister to bring the matter before the House, and, if his proposals are approved, further provision will have to be made, In connection with this matter is the question of our contribution under ; the Imperial Act, It ( is possible that a payment may during the year have to be made on this account; but, as it is uncertain, I do not propose to ask a vote. The amount can only be small this year, and if anything has to be paid I propose to make the payment out of * Unauthorised.'" What does that mean P If it means anything; it must mean that the report of Major-General Edwards, from Hongkong, is to be, in some respects at any rate, adopted. That report indicates that the permanent fp,re© k too weak, and that the Yoluuteer Force must be reorganised on lines which will require a considerable' increase in expenditure. He speaks, j not very felicitously.about a 'partiallypaid force.' Ido not knQW whether he means that those who aye promised £l2 a year §bn]l be paid only £6 or some Other sum less than £l2 ; but, whether tbey are te be paid on tbe compensation principle or not, I trust they will not be "partially " clothed, but that, if the proposals are adopted, the new force will be wholly clothed and be paid in full a reasonable sum for their services. Even if we are not prepared to launch into the increased defence expenditure indicated by Major-General Ed *vards—equivalent, he says, to that which prevailed in 1887, when our Defence expenditure, apart from Police, was close upon £loo,ooo—there is the contribution to