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

THE NO-CONEFIDENCE DEBATE.

As intimated by us yesterday, we intend to give Mr Ormond’s speech on Mr Stafford’s resolutions. It is reported in Hansard as follows : The very great length to which this debate has extended itself will, no doubt, render the House somewhat weary of this discussion; still, I think the House will agree that this debate has rested chiefly on charges against the administration of public works, and as I hold the ofhee of Minister for Public Works, I am afraid I will have to trespass somewhat unduly on the time of the House in the remarks I shall have to make. I will endeavor to be as concise and as brief as possible in these remarks, and I hope to be able to answer all the direct charges that have been made by all sides of this House against the Government with regard to the administration of public works. Those charges, as a rule, have been vague in their character, but there have been, fortunately 1 say for the Government, many direct charges made against that administration, and these, wherever they have been made, I hope and believe I shad be able to perfectly answer.

I do not intend to follow every speech that has been made, but 1 will follow those which I think have brought forward material charges, and especially those directed against administration in the North Island, which it will be my duty to answer. Before commenting on those remarks, 1. will go into one or two more general matters; and firstly, with regard to the charges that have been made with respect to the Brogden contracts, which have been especially an object of attack upon the Government. It is upon what lias been arranged by the Government under the Brogdcn contracts that the main attack lias been made. 1 shall not go into the minute history of those contracts: that was done lately by my honorable friend the Colonial Treasurer, who fully and thoroughly went into the history of these contracts from the beginning. But, Sir, I shall start from the time last year when the House, by a very large majority, authorized the Government to enter into contracts in substitution of contract IS o. 2. That decision was come to by a large majority of the House, and, judging from the speeches of the honorable gentlemen whose names appear in the division list on that occasion, there was no mistake as to the desire of tho House generally, namely, that an arrangement should be made with .Messrs Brogdcn to extend No. 2 contract to the amount of one mi lion. Among tho speeches that were made on that occasion, many were made by leading members on the other side of the House. The leader of the Opposition, the hop. member for Timaru, voted in favor of the i evolution which authorized the Government to enter into that contract. The honorabl,e member for Auckland City West, who ranks second, probably, on that side of the House, not only voted for the resolution authorizing the Government to enter in contract No. but he also expressed a very strong opinion, if I understood

his words rightly, as to the “ ruinous consequences of small contracts.” 1 believe these were the words the honorable member used. The honorable member for Parnell stated that he thought the arrangement made was a fair and one, ami the honorable member for the Hutt (Mr IMtgherbert), who is is also a leading member of the present Opposition, was in favor of the proposal; the only cause of dissatisfaction he had, so far as he expressed himself, was that the proposal did not go far enough, and that, in place of an arrangement to the extent of one million, he regretted that it was not for two millions. Sir, seeing that these were the views expressed by leading members on the other side, I think the Opposition has scarcely been just in blaming the Government for the whole responsibility of having had to arrange No. 3 contract. The majority of the speakers on the other side have founded upon that one of their main grounds of attack upon the Government ; but my honorable friend the member for Wallape started the other night by proposing to wipe on; njl jx-snonsibility on the part of the Government for that dock ion. The action taken by the Government, on the resolution of the House, was this : that as soon as the session was over they set themselves to the task of arranging with Messrs Brogdea on the basis laid down by the House, and contract No, 3, which has

been laid ou the table of tlie House, was arranged accordingly. Under that contract we were to supply Messrs Brogden with data fora number of railways, the names of which are particularized, and that linn was to tender for railways to the extent of one million ; and the Government further engaged to enter into arrangements with the Messrs Brogden for the construction of railways to the extent of L7Ot),()UO. No time w r as named within which they were to complete the arrangement ; but when it was completed, No. 2 contract was to bo cancelled, or, failing its completion, Messrs Brogden could revert to No. 2 contract. Sir, I had to refer to this point, as an honorable member of the Opposition (Mr Fitzherbert), the other day, made a statement winch somewhat startled this House, and winch I shall show the House, had no foundation whatever. That portion of the honorable gentleman’s speech is not yet reported in Hansard : but from notes which [ took, aided by a paragraph which I found in one of the local papers, the statement of the honorable gentleman was something like this:—

“The amount of the contracts was L700,(K)0. But he would draw: attention to one small fact, namely, that if within thru? weeks from now the Government were not prepared to supply the contractors with all data and he did not believe they would be —the result would lie a further liability of L 125,000. In fact, the Colony was in for it to the tune of LI, 150,000, and all for wa it of activity, industry, and capability on the part of the Government.” The Government are perfectly at a loss to know- on what foundation the honorable gentleman made this statement, or to account in any way for the extraordinary figures which be quoted. I say they are utterly without any foundation whatever. Without any explanation of the meaning of those figures, it is perfectly impossible to do more than say that they arc thorougly unfounded. 1 shall read some correspondence to the House to show how different the position is from that which was stated by the honorable member for the Hutt. Ou the 22nd August the Messrs Brogden addressed the following letter to myself, as Minister for Public Works : “.Since the contract termed No. 2, existing up to the 10th instant, between the Governor and ourselves, has been expunged j by the adoption of No. 5 contract, and the subsequent acceptance of various tenders exceeding the amount of L7()0,0U0, whereby we are relieved Irom holding in deposit a lixed amount of securities as agreed in No. 2

contract, we have to request that these securities, at present held by the Bank of New Zealand, may be released by an authority from the Government to the Bank to that effect.” That was the opening letter from the Messrs Brogden, and was received the night previous to the departure of the Suez mail. I saw Mr James Brogden, the representative of the firm, who is now in this city, in my office, and L agreed that if, on reference to the Attorney-General, there was no objection to the release of these securities, it would be done. With a desire to oblige that gentleman, 1 made hurried inquiries from the heads of my department as to whether contracts to the amount of L700,00l) had been entered into. An officer of my department gave me informati n, on which I wrote the lolh.wing letter on the 2iith August : “I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd instant, requesting that the securities deposited un ler No, 2 contract may be relcasal, al contracts have been entered into with your firm to an amount which terminates contract No, 2. 1 find, on inquiry, that the contracts eu'ered into do not amount in the aggregate to L7(JO,OI>O, which is the limit required before No. 2 contract can be considered cancelled ; and the Attorney-General advises that until contracts to the amount of L 700,000 are concluded with your linn, it cannot be said whether contract No. 2 may not yet be in loree. I regret, therefore, that 1 am not justified in releusiug the securities as you desire, until the necessary conditions arc complied with.” That letter was written on the same ui lit as 1 had the communication with Mr Brogden. 1 did not consider the information I had received from the officer referred to justified me in agreeing to release those securities. Inline.!lately afterwards, a further inquiry was made, and a list of the works given to the Messrs Brogden was supplied to the Attorney-General, for him to advise the Government as to the position the Messrs Brogden occupied in regard to Np, 3 contract. The Attorney-General then wrote the following memorandum to the Minister for Public Works ;

“ I think that the sums stipulated for maintenance are part of the agreed price, and are to be added to the L551),378 for making up L7<)0,000. Tills is so also witlx regard, to the L 125,000 under the contract for purchase of plant, and the sums expended on the Auckland and Mercer Kail way under the IQ per cent, arrangement. As to the 1.7,000 f<T stations, until work of that kiud has b n ordered, the price cannot perhaps be a i ed for this purpose.” i may say that these sums amounted in ■ all to L706,i>00, and the Attorney-General advised the Government they completed the agreement entered into with the Messrs Lirogd' n, to give them works amounting to L7op,OUO. Upon receiving that memorandum, I \yrpte to the Messrs Brogdeu, on the 3rd September, as follows ; “ Inferring to my letter of the 20th ult., in reply to yours of the 22ud, I have the honor to inform you that I am now advised by tbe Attorney-General that, iu addition to |Hie various contracts entered into with your linn, amounting iu all to L 550,378, and L 125,000 iu respect of plant, the items of L 5.430 for maintenance, L 22,192 paid on the Auckland to Newmarket line, under the 10 per cent, arrangement, are to be taken as forming part of the works agreed to be. arranged for under contract No. 3, and that consequently you are correct in considering that contracts to the amount of L7Q0,000 have been entered iuto with your firm, au(j that contract No. 2 may bo considered cancelled : thm Government, therefore, are ready to authorize the release of the securities lodged iu respect of that contract.” (To he continued.)

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18720921.2.19

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 2993, 21 September 1872, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,867

THE NO-CONEFIDENCE DEBATE. Evening Star, Issue 2993, 21 September 1872, Page 4

THE NO-CONEFIDENCE DEBATE. Evening Star, Issue 2993, 21 September 1872, Page 4

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