Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT.

From No. 40 of Hansard we take the following which is a portion of the debate in the house of Representatives, upon the vote of £55,610 for miscellaneous public works. It will be seen that it •was proposed to strike this vote out, and the following Canterbury members voted that this should be done, viz., Messrs Fitzroy, Richardson, Rolleston, Stevens, Teschemaker, and Wason ; whilst the following voted for, and assisted in -carrying, the retention of the vote, Messrs Fisher, and Montgomery : —Mr Fitzroy asked the honorable member for Akaroa why it was necessary, in respect to the items, v Road, Purau to Port Levy," arid " "Road, Port Levy to Pigeon Bay," to make those works a •charge upon the land revenue of the -colony.

Mr Montgomery said the reason was, that these roads, which were very necessary, had been neglected for many years. Money had been voted out of loans for works all over the colony. They had passed items to the amount of £, 196,000 without a single word. If these roads were not as necessary as those for which sums were passed in the early part of the evening, the House need not vote them ; but, if money was to be voted for making roads in one place, they were just as much bound to make them in another. If the honorable member for Selwyn knew anything of that part of the country he would know that these roads were necessary. He {Mr Montgomery) would not object to the votes being struck oat if the House •desired to adopt that course, but if they ■were struck out all the others should be struck out too.

Mr Reid demurred to the idea that the House should pass these items and leave a discretionary power in the GoTernment to regulate the expenditure. If the House passed the vote it should he passed upon the condition that the money should be expended, unless there •was some obstacle in the way, or some very good reason for departing from the vote of the House. The honorable gentleman had thought that some of these might not be spent. Then, why ask the House to pass them ? He would move: That the items be struck out, one by one.

Mr Sheehan thought it was rather cool of the honorable gentleman to try to make out a case against them when lie himself, two months ago, asked for which was to be within his absolute control. If the Government found the expenditure desirable they would go on with it, but if there were good reasons why it should not be spent it would be saved.

Mr Ormond understood that the principle laid down by the honorable gentleman as to the provincial liabilities, when it was understood that the Government should take charge of them, was that there should be equalization : that was to say that those provinces which had not sent in excessive votes should receive consideration. He might refer specially to the case of Auckland. Mr Wason quite agreed with the remarks of the honorable member for Akaroa that they should all start fair with those works. Several works in the Ashburton and Selwyn Counties had been brought under the notice of the late Minister for Public Works, as well as that of the present Minister for Public Works, and it was understood that they were to be put on the Estimates, and that every honorable member was to start fair. The items he referred to did not now appear on the Estimates, and it certainly seemed as if the honorable

member for Akaroa had got a very good start in the matter. If one county in Canterbury was to be favoured more than another it would produce great dissatisfaction.

Question put, "That the item be omitted ;" upon which a division was called for, with the lollowing result:— Ayes 14 Noes 29

Majority against

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AMBPA18780219.2.18

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 166, 19 February 1878, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
652

PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT. Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 166, 19 February 1878, Page 3

PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT. Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 166, 19 February 1878, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert