HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3725, 23 June 1883, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Friday. no-confidence motion. Mr Montgomery asked tho Government to bring on Supply at once, as he intended to move a vote condemning the Government, and censuring the Treasurer in respect to an imprest of £192,000 obtained on the 3rd May last. Major Atkinson said he had intended to rnako an explanation on the subject, but as Mr Montgomery was in such a hurry ho (Major Atkinson) would wait to hear what Mr Montgomery had to say. He therefore moved tho postponement of all business down to Supply at Mr Montgomery's request. The Auditor-General's memo, on the subject of the imprest was read by the clerk as follows:—"The Hon. the Colonial Treasurer, —I am unable to sign this requisition without pointing out that it involves a grave evasion of the law. It is not an inffraction of the law such that I should bo justified in declining to issue the money, but it evades the clear intention of tho Act. The ninth sectioii of ' The Public Revenues Act, 1882," provides for the expenditure for two months after the end of tho financial year, authorising the Colonial Treasurer to issue and pay moneys during such two months, but no longer, subject to certain conditions. The effect of • the presentrequisition, No. 88, is to draw out on tho: 31st of May, tho last day on which I can consistently with the law issue any money till Parliament meets, the sum of £192,000 from the public account and place it as an imprest in the hands of the Pay-piaster-General, so as to carry on the expenditure until the meeting of Parliament. If such a step can bo taken in an emorgency arising from the Parliament not being called together within the time for which such supplies are provided, I cannot but point out that tho same course might be adopted by the Government at any time and for any purpose, aud the whole expenditure of public wonoys bo changed from "that of

direct payment to ono of imprest payment, and from ono of pre-audit to the old system of audit after payment, a system which it was the sole object of the Revenues Act_ to abolish. It is true the law puts no specific limit to the issue of imprests, but they have hitherto been treated as exceptional and used whero direct payments could not bo made without inconvenience to the service, but the Audit Office has always felt it its duty to remonstrate against the issue of money on imprest for payments which might have been made clircctly from tho Treasury. I therefore feel that the issuo of this money, which I have no power to refuse, discloses a mode to which the clear intention of Parliament is being, and may be at any time, evaded, and moneys expended in a manner which the Audit Office must have declined tosanction had the claim beon presented to it before tho expenditure took place. As the point is one seriously affecting the manner in which the duties of the Controller and Auditor-General are to bo fulfilled I have the honor respectfully to request that this memo., together with tho requisition to which it relates, may be laid before Parliament as sooou as it meets, —Jas. Edward FitzGerald, Controller and AuditorGeneral, May 31, 1882. P.S—I should also point out that when tho Paymaster submits his vouchers for credit, and it appears by the receipts that payment have made before tho meeting of Parliament, it may be the duty of the Audit office to refuse to recognize such payment, or to relieve the Paymaster-General without the expposs sanction of Parliament, on the ground that tho law cxpressely forbids, not only the issue, but also the payment, of moneys after the 31st May.—J. E. FitzGerald." "The papers shall be laid before Parliament as requested,—Tiios. Dick (for Colonial Treasurer), 31st May, 1883." Mr Montgomery then moved the following amendment: — " That this House disapproves of the conduct of Ministers in obtaining an imprest of the sum of £192,000 by ' grave evasion of the law,' and contrary to the clear intention of Parliament and considers that the treasurer is deserving of censure in not laying the memorandum of tho Controller and Audit-General before Parliament as soon as it met, as requested by that officer, and promised by the Hon. T. Dick for the Treasurer." Mr Montgomery contended that a great wrong had been done, and a most dangerous precedent set. Tho law provided that for two months after the expiry of the financial year tho payments voted, but not expended, might still be made, the clear intention being to force the meeting of Parliament within that period. The Government, however, had not so called Parliament together, but on the last day of the period had, by way of imprest, drawn this money to enable tliem to carry on without Parliament for another month. They also allowed the Addross in Reply to be debated without saying one word about the memorandum they had in their hands, and which they had promised to lay before Parliament when it met. He did not make the motion in a party spirit, but from a sense of duty in trying to maintain the proper control of Parliament ovor the public purse. Major Atkinson replied at length, defending the cause pursued as strictly legal and absolutely necessary in order to carry on the public service. Ho contended that the issuo to the Paymaster was a payment under the Public Revenue Act. As to not laying the memo, before the Houso earlier, he said it should not have been sent through the Government at all. The Controller was a Parliamentary officer, and ho should have sent it direct. Had Mr Montgomery not been in such a hurry he would that day have cxplainod and justified the conduct of the Government. Nothing illegal and nothing- wrong had been done. Every penny was spent as voted by tho House, and the House would be asked to sanction all that had been done, so there was no attempt to ignore the control of the Houso over the public pnrso. Mr Holmes considered the conduct of tho Government in tho matter wholly illegal and unconstitutional.

Mr Evans Brown considered tho action in accordance with law, and justified by the circumstances. Mr Fish argued that the law had been evaded, and a precedent set which might hereafter be used for corrupt purposes. Mr Shephard defended the Government, and pointed out that even the Controller did not contend that any breach of tho law had been committed, but merely expressed an opinion that there had been an evasion of the intention of tho Act. Mr M. W. Green condemned the action of the Government in the strongst terms, and said that, had he acted in such a way two hundred years ago, Major Atkinson would havo been impeached. The debate was here interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment, and was resumed at 7.30. Mr Green further said ho feared tho Government had very littlo respect for law, as last session they had connived at the escape of a criminal awaiting trial, and had never exacted the bail bonds. Mr Bryce called on Mr Green to prove his charge, or lie under the imputation of making shameful and gross accusations Avithout any foundation. Had the Government connived at the escape he would not remain an hour on those benches. Mr Green declined to give the name in public. Mr Shaw said Mr Green ovideutly referred to Rattray's case, but was altogether wrong in his facts. Rattray did escape, but the Government had nothing to do with it, and Sir George Whitmore and Mr Sheehan, who were sureties, had paid their bail. An extradition warrant had also been issued against Rattray. As to the imprest question, he held the action of the Government to havo been strictly within the law, the issue being really a payment. Mr Steward concluded that the clear intention of the law had been evaded and a serious blow struck at the control of tho House over the public purse. All such attempts should be resisted to the utmost, and thorefore he would vote for tho resolution. Sir George Grey declined to accept such a reading of the Act. The Government had acted wrongly and illegally, and, if circumstances not in the public interest compelled them to violate the law, the facts should havo been stated in the Governor's speech, and the House asked to condone tho offence by an Act of Indemnitj r . A great mock of constitutional law had taken place; one, he believed, without precedent.

The Houso divided on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, which was carried by 43 to 29, Mr Montgomery's amendment being thus lost.

Ayes, -13. Allwright McMillan Atkinson Mitch lson Bcetham Munro Brown, J. E. O'Callaghan Bryco Peacock Buchanan, W. C. Pearson Connolly Petrie Dick Postlewaitho Dodson Rolleston Fergus Shaw Fitzgerald Shephard Fulton Stevens Green, J. Sutter Hamlin Sutton Hurst Swaris'on Johnston, C. J. Thompson, 11. Johnston, W. W. Trimble Kelly Watt Leo Whyte, J. B. Levestam Wilson, J. McKenzie, Capt. Wynn-Williams Mcllwraith Noes, 29. Barron ' * Hutchison Bathgate Ivess Bracken Joyce Buchanan, J. Macandrcw Cadman McKenzie, J. Daniel Montgomery Duncan Pyko Feldwick Seddon Fish Smith George Steward Green, M. W. To Whcoro Grey Thompson, J. W. Harris Tolc Holmes White, W. Hursthouse COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. In Committee of Supply Major Atkinson moved a resolution approving of the payments during June at the same rate as during the previous two months, which was agreed to after some discussion. In reply to a question from Mr Montgomery, Mr Johnston said that the delay in the completion of the alterations to "the buildings was due to the difficulty of obtaining workmen. The contract provided for the completion of the work about the middle of April, but it was impossible to get workmen. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT. On the House resuming Major Atkinson said that, had it not been for tho debate that day, he would have made bis Financial

Statement next Tuesday. Now he would make it on Wednesday, and the Public Works Statement would be made on tho Tuesday after, the estimates in each case coining down immediately after. The Government proposed to ask members to give up Thursdays for Government business after the local bills were disposed of. If this were done he hoped tho Government business might be concluded by the end of August. Of late years thero had been too great a tendency to allow private members to attempt to legislate the great public questions. Tho Government thought this should bo checked, and that largo questions of general policy should he dealt with by the Government when necessary. The principal measures brought down or to be brought down by the Government this session were as follows:—Consolidation Bills: Criminal Code, Municipal Corporations, Counties, Property Law Trusts, Trustees, Patents, Savings Banks, and Town Districts; General Government Bills: Local Courts, Bankruptcy, Married Women's Propertj r , Bill of Exchange, Fisheries, Tenant's Fixtures, Impounding, Alienation of Land, Public Trustee, Leaseholders' Qualification, Mining Companies Act Amendment, General Assembly Expenses of Members, Legislative Officers' Salaries, Privileges, Land Law Amendment, Native Land Court Amendment, Government Life Insurance, and Life Assurance Policies. There were a few other simple bills in both classes. tenants' fixtures bill. The Tenants' Fixtures Bill was rend a second time on the motion of Mr Conolly. prisons bill. Mr Conolly moved the second reading of the Prisons Bill. It took away from the visiting justices the power of prolonging tho original sentence ou account of prison offences, and required all serious prison offences to be dealt with in the nearest R.M. Court. In minor offences also the whole of tho proceedings must be in the prisoner's presence. It also provided for the inspection of visitors of lower grade than justices. Respectable working men and women would be appointed, with full power of enquiry. Colonel Trimble thought these visitors would clash with the visiting- justices. He complained that the new prison regulations were too cast-iron, and were especially so in regard to forbidding prisoners seeing friends, and depi-ivmg- them of tobacco. Mr Holmes concurred in the latter objections, and both he and Mr Fulton gavo instances of great hardships in regard to visits from friends. Mr Watt also concurred, and thought the visiting justices should have power to permit such visits. Considerable discussion took place, in which Mr Foldwick, Mr Joyce, Mr Dodson, Mr Scddon, Sir George Grey, Mr Shaw, Mr Shepherd, Mr Levcstam, Mr Daniel, Mr Hutchison, and others took part, all objecting to the severity of the punishments provided, and especially those of flogging and the dark cell. In replying Mr Conolly intimated that he would be quite prepared to accept amendment to modify the punishment, or do away altogether with those especially objected to. The bill was read a second time, and the House rose at 12.40.