PARLIAMENTARY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 977, 23 June 1883, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, Tune 22. THE RABBIT ACT. On the motion of the Hon. Mr Chamberlin, a return was ordered of the cost of working the Rabbit Act in Auckland. BILLS. The Married Women’s Property Bill and the Bills of Exchange Bill were read a second time without debate. The Council rose at 3.30. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, June 22. The House met at 2.30 p.m. VOTE OR CENSURE. Mr Montgomery asked the Hon. Major Atkinson to bring on Supply at once, as he intended to move a vote of censure on the Government in connection with the imprest obt dned on the (last day of the financial period. The Hon. Major Atkinson said he had intended to make an explanation on the subject, but as Mr Montgomery was in such a hurry, he would wait and hear what he had to say. He moved the postponement of all business down to Supply. At Mr Montgomery’s request the Auditor-General’s memo, on the subject of the which published in yesterday’s issue, was read by the Clerk.

Mr Montgomery said he was only doing hisduiy in endeavoring to maintain the control of Parliament over the public purse by bringing the matter immediately before the House. He was actuated more by patriotic than hostile motives. In speaking a few nights ago he had pointed out that the expenditure since the 3lst May was illegal. It had been met by on the last day withdrawing L 190,000 as an imprest from the control of the Controller. The terms of condemnation used by the Controller were sufficiently severe. It was no wonder, as he was a Parliamentary, not a Government officer. The Treasurer had been asked to lay the memo, before Parliament, and the Ministers had promised to do this, yet they had kept the paper back from the knowledge of the House until after the rep y to the address had been passed. Had this not been done it would have been the duty of the Opposition to have moved an amendment on the reply. It was now their duty to ask the House to express an opinion at once regarding the transaction. If the House passed over such conduct on the part of the Government without notice, the control of the public purse would have passed from the hands of the House. He hoped the matter would not be treated in a party spirit. Whether the motion he was about to propose was carried or not it would place on record that he had done his duty in protesting against an illegal and improper act on the Treasurer’s p irt. If the House did not pass the motion the country could then judge bet ween the Treasurer and those who tried to do their duty in guarding the public purse. He moved —“That this House disapproves of the conduct of the Ministry in retaining an imprest for L 192,000 by a grave evasion of the law, and contrary to the clear intention of Parliament, and considers that the Treasurer is deserving of censure for not laying the memo, of the Controller and Auditor-General before Parliament as soon as it met, as requested by that officer, and promised by the Hon. Thos. Dick for the Colonial Treasurer. ”

The Hon Major Atkinson said Mr Montgomery ended by entreating members not so take a party view of this matter. The ordinary courtesy of asking him to explain his conduct had not even been extended to him, a pretty good proof that he was acting entirely in a party spirit; if not Mr Montgomery would not have so readily interpreted the law of the Controller as condemnatory of the Government. Once before he had, with the concurrence of the Controller, in regard to a matter of L 150.000, evaded the letter of the law in order to carry out its spirit. He then came down to Parliament when it met, and asked for a Committee to investigate the subject, and invited Parliament to pass a Bill of Indemnity, which it at one j did. Had he been in Wellington he would not, as Mr Dick had done, have promised to lay the papers on the table, but would have told the Controller, as an officer of the House, it was his duty to report direct to ihe House if he had any complaint against the Government. He denied there had been any evasion of The Government had simply exercised a discretion entrusted to them by the House. A full third of the ordinary public revenue was always spent on imprest without proaudit. While he held office he would always claim i he right to spend as much as he thought for the public good. The House could judge how be used his discretion. Had he liked he could have got this money without a word being said, but he wished to do it most openly. Such a

power as he exercised must be held by 1 the Government if the public service was to be carried on. The more he saw of -i the present system of control the more he was convinced that it was entirely useless for practical good. The money was voted and placed in the hands of the Paymaster General as imprest. The claims were sent in to the various departments, and the vouchers sent to the audit. Then it came back to the Treasury, when it was sent to the Controller for approval, and if there was enough to the credit ofthe vote it was then paid. That was the ordinary method with this money. He claimed that the only difference was that the Controller could not see each item charged to its particular vote. Parliament had not in any way lost control over the money. If the money had not been got unier imprest it would have had to be charged as an unauthorised expenditure. Every halfpenny might have been spent before the 31sr. May, as Parliament had authorised its payment up that date. If the Controller was to determine when money was to bo spent on imprest and when not, it would be impossible to carry on the public service. The House must trust its officers, the Ministers. If they had not exercised their discretion they would have had to call Parliament together a fortnight earlier, when the buildings were unfit for occupation. He left it to the House to say whether Government Etd not exercised its discretion wisely in the interest of the country and of the hon members. He considered Mr Montgomery’s haste in bringing this matter on without awaiting his explanation, was most unseemly. He submitted with the utmost confidence to the judgment of the House. Mr Holmes contended that the Government had been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. The Treasurer complained of the undue haste with which the motion had been brought down. As a matter of fact he was continually taunting the Opposition with not bringing forward conclusions of this kind, and now that they were brought forward he complained of indecent haste. So long as the money obtained on an imprest was within the financial year there was no harm done, but the moment the financial year expired ; money raised by such means was a direct violation of the Act. It was distinctly provided that all votes not expended at the end of the financial year lapsed, and might be re-appropriated in the votes of ■ the next year. * This large sum of money I was used for services rendered after the f end of the financial year, and in that way the Treasurer had de'iberately violated 1 the Act of Parliament -an Act passed only ’ last year. If the provisions of the Act of 1882 could be thus contemptuously violated i- the year 1883, then the soonei the country knew of it the better. The discretionary powers claimed by the Treasurer were of the most extraordinary character, and might be used for the most corrupt purposes. He challenged the Treasurer to contend before the House that expenditure after the 30cli May was an appropriation by Parliament. If Parliament would by its vote on this * occasion deliberately sanction the violation t of an Act only passed last year, then he could only thank God he did not belong to a majority of the House. 1 Mr J. E. Brown said the moment the 1 imprest was placed in the hands of the imprestee the money became expenditure and therefore it was an expenditure withir the meaning of the Appropriation Acj of the then current year. He chargee the Auditor-General with an over-anxioui desire to secure the control of the publi< expenditure. The memo, told them ir one breath that it was an evasion of th< • law, and in the next they were told thal t it was not an evasion of the law. Agair f he (the Controller) professed to interprel a the law. If that were necessary, then they P should apply to the Law Officer, and not the Controller-General. The whole conI duct of the Audit Office was simply a sys

tem of caprice, as was elicited by the investigations of the Civil Service Commission. What would have been the effect in the service of the colony had the Government not done as it did. He

knew of money kept back from a contractor for two months after it had been earned, and had this imprest not been taken the delay would have been vexatious. The whole thing was only a mere quibble on th,e part of the Auditor, and yet they were asked to pass a monstrous vote of censure upon the Government and the Treasurer. r J.t would be quite sufficient to condone a far more serious offence' than this to think of the bare idea of such a contingency as Mr Montgomery getting on the Treasury B inches wuh such a one as the previous speaker as his legal adviser.

Mr Fish said the question was not whether the Government properly applied the money, but as to whether the law on the subject had been evaded. Home Government might be in office which would use this as a precedent for corrupt purposes. That was a danger they had to face, and if properly looked at they would see that it was an all important one. The Controller had been placed in the position because he is expected to come between the Government of the day and the Parl ament. Having done his duty to the best of his lights, it was most unfair that he should be abused as had been the case by the Treasurer. The Hon Mijor Atkinson denied he had abused the Controller. Mr Fish continued. The whole scope of the Revenues Act was that Parliament should be called together within two months of the end of the financial year, and the question for the.n to consider was, had that purpose been evaded. If the Government could legally avoid calling Parliament together for two months, then what was to prevent them from delaying the calling of Parliament together for six or even twelve months. Either they must support the motion or else they would virtually pass a vote of censure on the Controller. The suppression of the memo, until yesterday was an act for which the Treasurer deserved the sharpest possible censure. The Government knew that it would considerably influence the Address in Reply, and therefore it was kept back. He charged the Treasurer with acting in a disgustingly autocratic manner in the government of the colony, and trusting to his subservient majority to get his actions condoned.

Mr Shepherd contended that there was no change in the memo, of any law having been broken. It was all nonsense for them to go wrangling about a breach of the law which was not even charged. The Audit Department set itself up, not only to be superior to the Mini-sßy, but, as he read the document, it also desire! to control the opinions of the House. Had the money referred to not been drawn at the time it was the Public Service would have been seriously impaired, and that itself was a point for careful consideration.

Mr M. W. Green said that the meaning of the Revenues Act was that money must not be paid after the expiry of two months after the close of the financial year. Beyond that peiiod no moneys could be legally paid on any condition whatever. He was inclined to give the Government an honest support in all that was right. He had held judiciously aloof from the Opposition, because since last session his mind had been in a transient state. • Members might laugh, but it was only fools who were not open to honest conviction, and who never changed their minds. He had no wish to see the present Ministry replaced by one from the Opposition, but, although Ministers counted a majority in the House, he was not sure that they would in the country if there was a general election, and even some of their own number might not in such an event return. Still he was pared to support them iu what was right,

but in tils matter they whse undoubtedly wrong,,and a couplCof hundred years ago •the. Hon. 'Major Attiflson Would have run the risk of impeachment for acing as he had done. 3 The debate was interrupted by the 5 30 adjournment.

EVENING SITTING. The House resume! at 7.30. Mr M. W Green continued theitebateiHe argued that they were bound to look 'TEt the principles involved in this question apart altogether from party consideration, and that in ranging himself on the side of the Opposition, he ■ was doing an act his conscience could endorse to the end of his life. The excuse given for not calling Parliament together at an earlier date was lame and impotent. They should have got the tradesmen to work day and night to get the buildings ready in time. The Government had acted illegally and unconstitutionally, and .deserved punishment. He feared they had very little respect for the law. Last session they had yielded to influence, and connived at the escape of a criminal who embezzled funds, and the bonds of the sureties had never been estreated. [Loud cries of “Name.”] He would not give the name. The Hon. Major Atkinson absolutely denied the truth of both statements. •

Mr Green believed hd was correct, but he wouU not give the name. It was a matter of history. The Hon. Mr Bryce said that the Government had been accused of haying connived at the escape of a criminal during last session—one who had been committed for trial for embezzling Government moneys. If Mr Green could make good that assertion he ,(Mr Bryce) would at once’ leave the Government; if; not, he (Mr Green) would have to beg under the imputation of making gross and unfounded statements without probable cause, simply because he was protected by Parliamentary privileges. Mr Shaw said he understood Mr Green to have been alluding to the case of one Rattray. He spoke from his personal knowledge when he said ,that the -.only persons who interested themselves in Rattray were Mr John Sheehan and Sir Geo. Whitmore. Those gentlemen became bail for him, and their bail was estreated and had been paid. An extradition warrant for the arrest of Rattray wherever found had also been issued. He had no doubt in his own mind, from the reading of the Revenues Act, that the issuing of the money was legal, and as the issuing and the payment was one in this case, both were perfectly legal. • The PaymasterGeneral simply held the money in trust for the various parties to whom it was to be paid. The police force and other servants of the colony would have remained unpaid, although the wages were earned, if this money had not been got. The placing of that money in the hands of the Paymaster was, he contended, a payment within the meaning of the Act. Mr Steward spoke in favor of the motion, as he considered the action : of the Government as illegal as unconstitutional. Sir G. Grey said he did not at first

think the Government had been guilty' of the offence imputed to them, but subsequent arguments convinced him tha toe offence was made out. He thought, the Controller, as an officer of the House, should have an opportunity of being heard at the Bar of the House oa, the subject They had been told the Paymaster was simply a trustee for the parties to whom this money was. to be paid. He ventured to say that that was not the law of the case. He held the money on trust for this Parliament, and should not have paid the money in contravention of the law of the Parliament. No Ministry could spend money without.the consent of Parliament, and to spend without the consent of Parliament was a great national

crime. It was governing without a Parliament, and that was a state of things which had led to dire cona-.quenoes in other countries. What .the Parliament said was, “ You are enabled to make payments two months after • the ’> expiry of the financial year, but not one moment longer.” Then, again, having violated this law it ought to have been explained in the Governor’s speech, and an Act of Indemnity asked 1 ' for to condone the offence. Mr Montgomery in bringing forward this motion did a great duty he owed to the colony- For the Government to attempt to govern for a period of over fourteen days without Parliamentary authority, was a great offence, and ought to be resented. Those were his opinions on the point, and he desired that they should be made generally known. The House divided on the question that the House go into Committee of supply. Ayes—43 Messrs Allwrignt, Atkinson, Beotham, •J. &. Brown, Bryce, W. 0. Buchanan, Oonolly, Dick, Dodson, Fergus, Fitz Gerald, Fulton, J. Green, Hamlin, Hurst, 0. J. Johnston, W. W. Johnston, Kelly, Lse, Lovestam, F- W. Mackenzie, Mcllraith, McMillan, Mitchel; son, M ,nro, O’Oallaghan, Peacock, Pearson, Petue, Postlethwaite, Kolleaton, Shaw, Shepherd, Stevens, Sutter, Sutton, Swanson, H. Thomson, Trimble, Watt, J. B. White, J. Wilson, Wynn-Wil-iiams.

Noes —29. Messrs Barron, Bathgate, Bracken, Buchanm, Cadman, Daniels, Duncan, Feldwick, Fish, George, M. W. Green, Grey, Harris, Holmes, Hursthouse, Hutchinson, Ivess, Joyce, Macandrew, J. McKenzie, Montgomtry, Pyke, Seddon, smith, Steward, Te Wheoro, J. W. Thomson, Tole, W. White. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

In Committee of Supply, Mr Montgomery asKed why the budding alterations had not been completed earlier The Hon. Mr Johnston said the contract was for the work to be completed about the middle of April. The contractors, however, had found it utterly impossible to procure the necessary workmen. The Hon. Major Atkinson moved the following resolution: — kC Pursuant to the provisions of the Public Revenues Act, 1881, it is hereby resolved by the House of Representatives that the period of two mouths mentioned in the 9th section of the said Act, during which the Treasurer may issue and piy money in the event and on the conditions of the said section mentioned, shall, and the same is hereby extended to a further month, and that such further month shall date and be reckoned from the expiration of the said period of two months, viz., 31st day of May last. ” . After some discussion this was agreed to, and the House resumed, when it was also agreed to by the House and ordered to be transmitted to the Legislative Council. GOVERNMENT BUSINESS. The Hon Major Atkinson said he had intended to make a definite statement as to the business, but that intention had been interrupted by the debate. Me would be prepared to make the Financial Statement on Wednesday, if members would give up that night. If not the Statement would be delivered on Friday evening, and the Estimates brought down immediately afterwards. On the following Tuesday the Public Works Statement could be delivered, and the Public Works Estimates brought down immediately afte. wards. Next week he would ask that Thursday should , bo , given up to Government for the Teat of the session. In that case he thought they might finish the Government business by the end of August, -: 1 ; •■ ■ * I; ‘j bills. 11; The Tenants’ Fixture Bill was read a second time, on the motion of the Hon Mr Conolly. -

The Hon Mr Conollt moved the second reading of the Prisons Bill. After a long discussion the Bill was read a second time, and the House rose.