EXTRAVAGANT EXPENDITURE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1919, 31 October 1906, Page 3

EXTRAVAGANT EXPENDITURE.

REFLECTIONS ON THE PAST ADMINISTRATION.

HEATED DEBATE IN THE HOUSE,

[(Special to Gisborne Times.) Wellington, last night. Tho muttcrings of discontent that have been prevalent in tho lobbies since the supplementary Estimates made their appearance were voiced yesterday afternoon by Mr Laurenson, who, speaking with considerable emphasis, said he had sat in tho House for seven years, and ho had never been more dissatisfied with or more ashamed of any estimates than those they had just passed. He did not wish to reflect upon tho present Government, because there were items on the estimates for liabilities incurred before they took office, but there wore sums voted that

they should never have been called upon to vote, and that were a disgrace to them. He wished to see from the present Government that which they had not been having of late, economical and quiet administration. If the present Government would go in for that, and do without any of the jingoistic, Barman sort of self advertising politics that had boon the bane of our democracy latterly, they would confer a boon upon the country (hoar, hear;, and prolong their political existence He would oppose any. Government that would continue the method that had been characterising our political life during the last few years. He believed that when they gave a man prolonged political power, indiscriminate power, he was bound, unless ho was a very exceptional man and not extravagant, to become tyrranous. Some of the votes that they had recently passed had nauseated him. If ho referred to them in detail he would be accused of being personal, and of raising questions that should not be raised. He had to sit silent there and see those votes passed, votes with which ho was not in accord at all, and which ho believed the country must condemn. lie' rose to say how strongly lie disagreed with those votes, and how ashamed he was of them. The real “ wash-ing-up ” Bill had been those estimates, and he wished to absolve the present Governmens from being in any way connected with the items he had most objection to. An hon. member : 11 Name them,” Mr Laurcnson said lie would name one of them, a vote of nearly £2OOO for the footballers. Under the circumstances that vote was an outrage. If members sitting around him would only express their true opinions regarding that item and many other items they would speak more strongly than he was speaking now, Mr I'rasor (Wakatipu) said ho would not have risen but for the remarks of Mr Laurcnson, That gentleman had expressed shame and indignation at the votes they had to pass, Did such a charge come well from a member on the Government side of the House ? He said it did not. If Mr Laurcnson’s speech had boon made some years ago in response to what the Opposition objected to, probably the legacies they had seen that day might not have been seen. Did ho think that hon. members on that side of the House had not looked with shame and indignation on those things '! (Speaking for himself, he had held his tongue all through because he could not trust himself sometimes to speakThey had made up their minds that they wore going to act generously in this matter, to put the sponge over the slate, and say no more about it. That was the feeling he had, and lie said it was not becoming to those on the other side of the House

to cast the first stone. They wore responsible. and could not re-establish themselves in public estimation by inveighing now against the thing they had consented to in years gone by. He thought he would not bo acting properly if he did not say that now what had fallen from Mr Laurenson was a complete proof of many of the things the Opposition had spoken about in the past, but with what support from hon. gentlemen '? He repeated that the responsibility lay with hon. members on the other side of the House, and it did not lie with them now to talk about them. Mr Hogg said ho was in hopes now that Cabinet had been reconstructed a new system would be adopted, and that every vote would be carefully scrutinised, Ministers recognising that they were re* sponsible to the people as trustees of the money. Mr llaumc deprecated the remarks

mado by Mr Laurenson, and said the colony had much to thank the late Mr Scddon for. He quoted Shakspearian words, 11 Yesterday he was my friend, today none so poor as to do him reverence,” which he thought were applicable in the present instance. Tie regretted that the member for Lyttelton should have given vent to a condemnation of a man who was no more. (Hear, hear.) Speaking in reply on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, Sir Joseph Ward said he desired to express his disapproval of the speech delivered by the member for Wakatipu. It was quite true thut Mr Laurensgn had made strong res

marks about itoms in tno J3stunat.cs that the la,to Government was responsible I'o lie luul nauioil ono item, X'JOOO for ill passages of New Zealand footballers Iron England, but what did tho member fo Wakatipu do'.’ Ho got up and hurlci charges "against tho administration in th idlest possible manner. Mr Frasor : Not ono word. Mr A. L J>. Eraser: The lion. Mcmboi for Lyttelton did. Sir Joseph Ward: Jlo used tho remark ‘corrupt item ” This was lovellod ugains t dead man. Cries of “• shame ” from Lho Opposition bunches. Sir ,1. Ward said ho was not going to stand there as ono who had boon associated with tho late Premier, and hear host) remarks Hung across tho lloor of tin louse by innuendo, Tho lion. Momboi tad saiil that tho present administration rns not responsible for it. That was poroetly correct, but any sensible man readug between tho lines would sco there was n aspersion upon one who had passed way, llogarding payment to the footballers lion, members must recollect tho circumstances. Their successful tour it England had stirred the pulse of tho poo pie, who were jubilant then at the marvel lons record, and through tho then lioad ol Government appreciation was shown in this way of their sorvicos, Mr W, Eraser forcibly denied that he lad east any insinuation upon tho late Premier. ILo left it to hon. members to say whether he had done so, What he had taken exception to was that tho hon member for Lyttelton had cast a reflection. Tho Premier’s statement that lie (Mr Eraser) had made such an insinuation was contrary to fact. He was astonishod when the Premier got up and addrossoii him in that manner. He did not retract i single word, lie made no reflection, and he contended that he did defend the late Premier. Sir J, Ward said he did not want to misrepresent the lion member, but his remarks about the administration in past years conveyed tho impression mentioned, Mr Eraser : My condemnation in past years I glory in, but I say that it did not lie with the hon. membor for Lyttelton to say one word on tho subject, because ho by his votes and his speeches in the House has always supported that administration, but I never have done so. Mr Lauronson explained that ho had voted against the late administration time after time, and ho could name vote after vote against which ho had protested Mr Massey referred to his having interjected “ shame ’’ while the Premier was speaking, In case it might be thought that his reference was that tho momber for \\ akatipu had attacked a dead man ho wished to make it clear that lie referred to the remark of the Premier regarding tho member for Wakatipu. It was a sliaine:ul thing to say • Neither directly nor inlirectly had tho member for Wakatipu attacked the late Premier, ►Sir Joseph Ward claimed that it was an unusual thing to allow an unparlia montarv term like -1 shame ” to bo used The Speaker : That is a reflection upon me. I must ask you to withdraw that expression, Sir J. "Ward : Very well. The Speaker : “ Shame ” has not been ruled to be unparliamentary. I have not ruled so, Sir J. Ward : Very well, I withdraw it. Anyone listening to the speech of the hon. member for Wakatipu could not but have come to tho conclusion that it was a reflection. At this stage (6 p.m.) Mr Massey suggested that they should take the dinnci adjournment, and perhaps members of the House would bo in a bettor frame of mind at 7.J0. The House went into Committee on the Appropriation Bill, and at once adjourned as suggested,