THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2657, 12 November 1909, Page 5

THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

WELLINGTON PRESS OPINIONS

(Special to “Times.”) WELLINGTON, Nov. 11. Speaking on the Budget the_ “Post” to-night gives general approval to the. proposals, save that it/would have preferred adherence to the original leasehold policy for Crown lands. It, however, gives a reluctant assent to the freehold compromise. Its general approbation is couched in these words: — “We are sure that the general verdict will be, not merely that Sir . Joseph Ward has discharged the essential parts of his onerous tank with conspicuous success, but that lie lias far exceeded all reasonable expectations in the number, variety, and importance of the pro- ( blems outside the strict limits of finance which he lias attacked in a bold and construe ti v e fash ion. ” Sir Joseph Ward’s change from his former attitude on the internal defence question strikes the “Post” with agreeable surprise, and is attributed to Mr. McNab’s recent campaign and the Imperial Defence Conference. The paper declares that “the graduated income tax, the revised death duties, the betterment system for railways and the determination to liquidate our Dreadnought liability within eighteen years seen to us to be all matters for almost unmixed congratulation.” The morning papers only deal tentatively with the Budget, not having had sufficient jtiino to scrutinise details. The “Times,” on the land proposals, says: “They partake of the nature of a compromise, but proceed upon lines which should meet with the approval of leaseholders and freeholders alike. The only people likely to bo dissatisfied are the ‘original valuation’ advocates' and those to whom any and every proposal of the Government is anathema. They will, of course, express their mortification in the customary way. The people generally will look upon these suggestive changes as indications of a fairminded effort to achieve a practical end without sacrifice of public interests.” Regarding the additional on? per cent Customs dutyj the “Times” remarks: “It is to us an objectionable, though unavoidable, feature of the otherwise excellent provisions for obtaining extra' income.” On the ]x>Jicy as a whole the “Post” concludes: “The policy outlined generally is decidedly progressive in character, and likely to be welcomed throughout the Dominion.” The “Dominion” considers the financial Statement “an extraordinary mixture of finance and philanthropy,” adding, “Many quite admirable proposals are sandwiched between wholly undesirable propositions. Ugly facts are pleasantly dressed and trotted out for admiration and applause, and, while there are stern words which tell of economy and retrenchment, the cry which runs through the Budget from beginning to end is for more taxation to replenish the Treasury chest.” The “Dominion’ ’declares that the Customs duty yield is greatly underestimated at £50,000. It approves the Dreadnought repayment proposals, and the internal defence scheme as outlined. It concludes: ‘Viewing the Budget as a whole, although there are some pleasing features in it, the first impression gaipeß is not a cheerful one. That this young country, after its long years of prosperity, should, following a few months of depression and when things are on the v mend, have to go searching round for fresh means of squeezing taxation out of the people’s pockets, shows very plainly that our financial methods have been bad, and that much of the money gathered in from taxation in the past has been mis-spent. Before Sir J. G. Ward is granted the additional taxation he now proposes to take, he must be called on to show that it is necessary as he states it to be, and that it cannot be avoided even by the exercise of that economy which he is now preaching, and which, we should be extremely pleased, to see him practise.” In a separate editorial on the land policy, the “Dominion” says: “It would be absurd to waste a sigle moment in talkng of principle in the presence of a policy that is obviously devoid of any principle at ail, a policy from which principle has been so rigorously excluded that it will give opportunism boundless scope for eloquence upon its virtues as a marvellous example of compromise.” In reference to the determination to retain the leasehold principle in the national endowment of nine million acres, the “Dominion” says: “No member of the House who was returned as a supporter of the freehold tenure can give any support to this proposal. It runs directly counter to the freehold ideq. The Government must be considered, therefore, to have decided to test once more the limits of the freehold public endurance.” The paper concludes by declaring “the new land policy is a fraud and a sham.” MEMBERS AND THE STATEMENT. As I indicated some time ago would be the case, the Budget contained various proposals for new taxation. I also pointed to the likelihood of the Government endeavoring to get out of its leasehold land policy by adopting the Lloyd-George principle of .absorbing a portion of the “unearned increment.'' Tliis, too, has come to pass. Though members anticipated some increase in taxation, the Budget proposals took most of them by surprise; and some were shocked at the magnitude of the extra taxation demanded. There is now much groundwork for lively discussion, and the remainder of the session nmy be expected tq be interesting. I am still of opinion that Parliament will prorogue before Christmas, but it is absolutely certain that not a fourth of the Ministerial programme will be put through; and, amongst other measures, it is quite possible the Land Bill itself will be shelved. MR, MASSEY’S VIEWS ON THE BUDGET. In an interview with Mr. Massey tonight on the land proposals, lie stated lie did not consider the “supposed concessions” as being in themselves of very much value, but the admission of the freehold principle is important. As to the admission of the Premier-with regard to the lease in perpetuity that “the value of a reversion postponed for 999 years is not very appreciable, even when the State is the reversioner,” and also that the conditions as to limit of area and occupation can bo effectually safeguarded even under a grant of t'ho freehold. That, Mr. Massey says, is what his party has contended all along. He considers it satisfactory that a Land Bill is coming down, and if they get the opportunity of dealing with ’it, either this session or next, he is confident that they would be able to make improvements in the Land Act which will be of benefit both to settlers and the country. It is very gratifying to himself and the others who have contended for the freehold, that they had. made an impression on the Premier and the Government, an<l that tlic Government find it necessary to give way and retire as gracefully as they can from the position they took up a year or two ago.

Regarding the tremendous increases in taxation proposed, lie considers the proposals exceedingly serious, and likely to have a very bad effect so far as the prosperity of the country and its credit arc concerned. He hoped that what bad happened in this connection would induce the people of the country to look mere closely into the manner in which, their financial affairs arc conducted. In any case they must see that the position we had got into was a striking contrast to the glowing statements that were made at the time of the general election. Concluding, Mr. Massey said, "I have no hesitation in saying that for some time past the real position has keen covered up, and, more than that, I consider that Ministers, by their want of foresight, are responsible to a very great extent for the difficulty that has arisen.”