THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1892. MR SAUNDERS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2423, 10 November 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1892. MR SAUNDERS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

Mu Alfred Saunders, M.H.R., as he says himself, is not a strong party man. He was not elected as a supporter of Mr Ballance, and no one looked upon him otherwise than an Independent, if not an Atkinsonian. But, like “ those who came to scoff and remained to pray,” Mr Saunders has, since the last election, worshipped at the shrine of the present Government. He has differed from them on some points, but on the whole he has been a fairly loyal supporter. Being, therefore, not a party man, his utterances are the more valuable, and his testimony as to the work of the present Ministry may be taken as impartial. Regarding Mr Saunders, therefore, as an impartial witness, the speech which he delivered recently to his constituents must be taken as an honest exposition of the proceedings of last Parliament. In that speech Mr Saunders complained of the obstructive tactics of the Opposition, whose only aim appeared to be to prevent the Government from doing the business of the country. This is not a laudable thing to do, but no doubt their constituents will make them account for such unpatriotic conduct. Speaking of the financial position, Mr Saunders said that from 1881 to 1891 the debt of the colony had increased at the rate of £1,000,000 a year, but the present Government changed this, and during their one year of administration they had decreased the debt by £117,000. That, at, least, is a grand result, and Mr Saunders proved it by reference to the figures. The Opposition, he said, endeavored to prove this was not correct, but failed to do so, as any one could see by referring to the public accounts of the colony. He contrasted the policy of the present with the past Government. The present Government were administering the affairs of the colony carefully, but while irresponsible followers of the late Government went about preaching economy, the late Government itself was spending money extravagantly. With regard to the charge that the present Government were borrowing in an underhand way, he said it was a “ half truth that was made to do the duty of a whole lie.” The Government were borrowing the sinking fund, when released, the same as all their predecessors since 1881 had done, but this was not increasing the debt of the colony. Other Governments borrowed the sinking fund, and borrowed in the London market also, and that was what made the difference. With regard to the difference between the Land and Income Tax and the Property Tax, he gave several instances of how it would benefit farmers. A farmer with 200 acres who paid £3 5s lOd Property Tax would pay nothing under the Land Tax. A farmer with 400 acres who paid £7 Is 3d under the Property Tax would pay £1 3s 4d under the Land Tax. A farmer who had a square mile of la3d. paid £ll 12s 6d Property Tax, wollla 0W £3 Is 8d Land Tax, and it was only when a man got £12,000 worth of land that he paid under the Land Tax as much as he did under the Property Tax. Mr Rhodes last year told us that a man who had £30,000 worth of land would not suffer from the Land Tax. He was likely to underestimate, while Mr Saunders may possibly over* estimate. By splitting the difference, however, and placing the sum at £36,000, we presume we shall not be fat' wrong. The change in the incidence of taxation, therefore, will not hurt anyone who has not £36,000 worth of land, so it is useless for any one to try and make us believe that farmers will suffer by the change in the incidence of taxation. Taken all round, Mr Saunders made a very 7 able speech ; it is a clear and truthful exposition of the Government policy, and the Opposition orators will have something to do to refute the assertions it contains.