THE FINANCIAL DEBATE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8229, 5 September 1906, Page 5

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE.

By Telegraph- Press Association

WELLINGTON, September 4. In the House of Representatives, last evening, Mr Masbey opened the Financial Debate. He did so with mixed feelings, for while there was muoh in the financial proposals of the Government of which he approved, end would support, there was much on the oner haud of whioh he disapproved, and would oppose at the right time. The first set of proposals, the provision for Siokiug Funds audit, etc., formed the highest conipliiisnt that oould be paid to hon. members of the Opposition. He would like to see more of their ad viae taken. For iastanoe, he would revoke those seotions of the Public Revenues Aot, whioh in defiance of constitutional principles curtail the powers of the House, and increase thee of the Government. Then Parliamentary supervision would complete the financial control. Moreover, the system of reporting to Parliament was slipshod, and ought to be amended. He denied the surplus of £786,000, on the ground that a sum of £750,000 ordered to be transferred from the surplus of last year of £761,000 was not so transferred. Only half a million was transferred, consequently £261,000 was uaea for two surpluses.* He denied also the soundness of the education superannuation fund, as the renort of the actuary requiring the strengthening of that fund by £17,000 had" not been given effect to. These two items, together with an item of Trust Funds, made an amount of over £300,000, which ought to be substraoted from the surplus. The raising of the last loan in Australia had humiliated this country by the payment of a higher rate of interest than thai at whioh the neighbouring countries had got their loans at. It was also an ad mission of the unsoundness of oui credit in Londun. It was certainly not a sign of prosperity. In the face of the larger Australian export per head, and the difference in the land expenditure, it was not right to exaggerate the prosperity which undoubtedly existed. The fact was we must reduce the rate of borrowing. The increase of expenditure of the Consolidated Fund exceeded the revenue increase by £184,948. Coming to the land proposals he denounced the endowment proposals as a trick on the part of the party in power to prevent settlers from getting the freehold. The leasehold propotals would place the holders at the mercy of the ballot and the Government valuation, and from such laws he would say "Heaven defend us." The issue, however, is clear. It is freehold v. leasehold. Independent settlers or a State tenantry. Serfs of the Crown or every man his own landlord. As for the freehola actually offered in the proposals, the provisions for going to the ballot would effectively prevent all conversion to the freehold. The only conversion possible would be from 999 years to 66 years, with the privilege of the lending of money to the Government by settlers, who never have any money. Under the proposal, settlement would be at first impossible, and muoh hampered for many years to come, . and the endowments, for which all this disturbance ,is made, and the welltried optional system is to be abolished, would be insufficient for the purposes named. Leasehold be proceeded to condemn as the cause of bad farming. Any one oould see in travelling through the country that the leasehold tenure is disastrous. Mr Duncan: "Its the other way about." Mr Massey proceeded to point out that even, the lease-in-perpe-fcuity is not seoure, for all transfer by sale or will is dependent on the oonsent of the Commissioner. Freehold on the other hand carries with it independence whioh no leasehold knows. A voioe: "Mortgagee for instance." *

Mr Massey said that the contrast between the Ministerial policy and his own was clear. His policy was —"Every man his own landloid." As every man is not in a position to buy at ono« he ought to be allowed to take up a leasehold with the right of purchase. This is what the Land Comtnissiou recommends, and that recommendation was ignored, bat, 90 tor cent, of the settlers are of that opinion, and it will take a general election to settle the point with them. Coming to the Native land proposals, he characterised thwm as absolutely rctten. Mr MoNab explained the special circumstances tnat required him to follow the Leader of the Opposition. Going baok to 1891 he pointed out that the late Sir John Mackenzie had foreseen that the dwinding away of the public lands would force the Government to repurchase freeholds in order to satisfy the publio demand for lands. The history of the land for settlement, with its large loans, proved the correctness of this forecast. Between the gales and alienation reservations and useless mountain country there, and the Native lands, there remain available 32,390,000 aar*B out of the 65 millions comprised in all New Zealand. The amount of laud to be supplied would have to be made up. There are now 6a holdings by individuals ana corporations (not including endowments) of over £5,000, ranging up to £217,000 unimproved value. The aggregate area is 1,886,000. During the next ten years £2,250,000 worth of this land will be puu on the market. There is moreover an additional nroposal of the land policy. It is that every man who buys laud will have to make the same denlaration as is made by the applicants under the land for settlement policy. That will prevent large holders from selling to each other. Coming to the leasehold proposals, he explained them as based on the Glasgow system—tnat is, the leases will be renewable with valuations by the Court. Explaining the working of the remission for cash proposals, he pointed out that the above general provisions or transfer ipplioable to all transactions would make the remission of harassing conditions considerably safer. At the same time the restrictions sometimes, as in a late C3se that had come under

bis notice, were the only things able to save ignorant persons from rain. However, he would say that if these proposals had been in forcef rom the first, thorw would not have been any of this ory for the freehold. '.lhe money capitalised, be would add, would create a fund for carrying on the Land for Settlements! policy, which ia carrying a handicap, of yearly increasing debt. He had no hesitation in saying that the Leader of the Opposition and his friends in their hearts agreed with these proposals. The endowmenta Mr MoNab declared to ba necessary for the groat departments they were devoted to were growing wry substantially from year to year, and making it more and more diffioulfc to reduce the taxation on the necessaries of life. The growth in the value and prcduotive power of these endowments would prevent the pressure of the above great departments, and of the railway concessions upon the consolidated revenue. When these things are realised the oountry will be unanimously in favour of the Government proposals. Mnreover if these proposals were to be departed from it would be impossible to have any endowments at all. Native lands were eight million aures in extent, but the Native Minister had told him that not more than about half a million acres oould be depended on for endowments from that source. In conclusion, Mr MoNab said there is a Land Bill, and it will be brought down at the proper time. Mr Berries cited the various occasions when Mr MoNab had voted for , the froehold and spoken in its favour and hid voted against the leasehold and spoken in its disfavour. For hia own part, he saw no policy in the Government proposals.- It was hybrid and piebald. Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition had anticipated it twelve years ago. An extension of the graduated tax, whnh he was prepared to support, would achieve the object muoh better. The £50,000 limit ought not to be confined to the country. It should be extended to the towns, where it was just as muoh required. The freehold was offered in the case of the 62 estates, and he did not see why it should not also be offered under the Land for Settlement. On the whole the Ministerial proposals had unsettled the minds of men throughout the country. .Everything under the Government was to be leasehold, and 62 unfortunate people were to be deprived of their property for the sake of the freehold—all at the bidding of Mr McNab's colleagues, but that did not justify the general unsettling uf the minds of the country on the land policy generally. For the Budegst he had much to say in praise and something th'e reverse. The Hon. G. Fowlds pointed out, in reply to Mr herries' criticism, that the freehold in the Ministerial proposals was confined to the property of the 62 "unfortunates;" that the proposals comprised one for a very large offer of freehold to the • Government tenants under certain conditions. He defended his colleagues' vote and his own against the rebate to Crown tenants by reminding the House that many of these tenants had been credited with a good will of £1,500. Mr MoNab and he had thought it wrong to give a rebate to men so well off, but their suggestion had paved the way for the Bush and Swamp Lands i\ot, whioh actually remits rents in certain oases altogether for a term of years. For his own part, he denied that he had ever advocated the wholeoontrol of the lands by the State. He ridiculed Mr Herries' pretended readiness to support a further graduated tax, and characterised his suggestion to out up town property above £50,000 in value as absurd. He saw no reason because most of the national estate bad been frittered away in the past the remainder should not be usefully employed for endowments. TbeHe, moreover, would inorease in value. If the arguments used against this polioy were correct, then they told against all the endowments made in the past, the tenant under whioh ought to therefore have the option of the freehold. The 66 years lease of the Government, he pointed out, was in reality a 66 years freehold. The Leader of the Opposition made a dear issue between leasehold and freehold. He did the same last November, and his party came bac« to the House just fifteen strong. The House adjourned at 11.30 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. the next day, when the debate will be continued.