Progress or Stagnation. Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 31, 31 July 1902, Page 1

Progress or Stagnation.

Current Topics

It was no great loss to the country that the Financial Debate, which was expected to last at least a fortnight, abruptly and unexpectedly fizzled out. Of the speeches that were delivered, the vast majority were hopelessly commonplace and uninteresting. Sir \V. Russell alone of the Opposition members made any pretence at a <=enotis attack on the Budget, ami even his criticism was obviously more putisan and conventional than the expression of icml and genuine feeling. The two principal points made b> the qu.iM-leadtr ol the Opposition were, first, that the Government had dip.irud fium th« ' sell-reliant' non-borrowing policy originally laid down by Mr. lj illance; and second, that the Government were adding to the public indebtedness at such a rate that we would soon be brought to a condition of national bankruptcy. The points were easily disposed of. In answer to the first, it was pointed out that owing to the inauguration of the Advances to oettlers and Lands for Settlement schemes, the circumstances of the Colony had changed since Mr. Ballance's time and borrowed money had become a necessity, though by far the greater part of it was directly reproductive. As to the second, Sir \V. Russell, in common with all the other Opposition speakers, conveniently ignored the fact that there are a large number of half-completed railways in the Colony that can be soon converted into good paying lines by either being completed or by being constructed up to a given point, but that this work cannot possibly be done except on borrowed money. Ii the Opposition were to boldly declare that they would be willing that all public works should be allowed to remain as they are rather than that we should continue further borrowing, their attack on the Government might be entitled to some weight, but they have not done this, and under the circumstances everyone must feel that there is a certain amount of unieahty and sham about the criticism they have offered. # For undoubtedly that is the crux of the whole question which the country is now called upon to face — Are our public works to remain at a standstill and the country to be allowed to stagnate, or are we to make an eifort to continue the live vigorous progressive policy of recent years? The position was put very plainly by Sir Joseph Ward in a speech delivered just prior to the opening of the Financial Debate. Speaking at a gathering of journalists in Wellington, Sir Joseph Ward said that the Colony was now passing through a very important epoch in its history, and legislators were face to face with the question of whether the Colony was to be kept going ahead and to maintain its prosperity of the last lew years, or whether it was the wish of the people that it should 'go slow.' What he desired was that the position should be fairly stated and that there shou'd be no hypocritical pleadings for economy on the one hand, and clamorous demands for the prosecution of public works such as making roads and railways in various districts on the other. Sir Joseph Ward gave it as his opinion that it would be a ruinous thing for the Colony to adopt a 'go-slow' policy at the present juncture, because to stop or curtail its development would lead to a wave of depression throughout New Zealand.

There have been plenty of 'hypocritical pleadings for economy on the part of members of the Opposition, but no one has pointed to any one of the works for which the loan moneys are allocated as being unnecessary, and if the works are thus really necessary and are to be carried out at all, the country may as well make up its mind to it that it can only be done on borrowed money.