GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 379, 30 August 1875, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Electric Telegraph.] {From a correspondent of the Press) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, August 27, THE ABOLITION DEBATE. At the evening sitting, Mr MacandreW asked the Colonial Treasurer, in the event of the provinces being abolished, and the estimated revenue of the various provinces during the current financial year falling short of the amount necessary to cover the respective provincial votes for the provincial public works and services, who is to decide as to what works and ser vices are to be abandoned and what are to be carried out. Hon Major Atkinson replied the Provincial Councils having voted £BOO,OOO more than their estimated revenue, it is quite evident they did not propose that the whole of the proposed works should be carried out during the present year. [“ Oh,”] The Provincial Councils having, therefore, left discretionary power in the hands of the (Superintendents and Provincial Executives—[Mr Macandrew —“No”] —to decide upon the order in which the proposed works should be executed, the Government propose to consult, or rather to take the advice, of the Superintendents and Executive Councils with the view of being guided by their recommendation. [Ministerial Cheers.] After Mr Wales sat down there was a long pause, and the Speaker called on the Treasurer, who was not in the House. Sir D. M‘Lean consulted with the Speaker, and a messenger was sent for Major Atkinson, who, on returning to the Treasury Bench, was loudly cheered. On being called on to reply, and as he rose, Mr J. C. Brown got up and commenced speaking against time. At II he applied for the customary adjournment for refreshment, and through a misunderstanding the Speaker took no notice of the request, whereupon Mr • O’Conor charged the Speaker with partiality, saying the courtesy Mr Brown asked for had been allowed Mr Pilzherbert the other night without question, and asked the Speaker to explain why there should be a difference. Sir D, Bell said he treated the member for Bullcr’s remarks with contempt, as they deserved, and warned him if he dared again make such remarks he would be reported to the House, Mr Murray then came to Mr O’Conor’s assistance* and in substance re pcated his assertion. Sir D. Bell, addressing both, said it would be the last time they would with impunity address the chair in that manner. He told them if they were dissatisfied with the Speaker, or accused him of partiality—[here Mr Murray hearheared very loudly]—their duty was to re port such to the House. The quarter of an hour’s adjourume.' t was then allowed, Hon Major Atkinson’s reply occupied about an hour and a half in delivery. He expressed disappointment with Mr Stout’s speech, because that member only looked at tlic question from an Otago point of view. One of the strongest arguments in support of the Bill was to be found in that speech and in the statement of the Superintendent of Otago that there were not two men in (he colony, himself claiming to be one of that number, who knew anything about tinfinance of the colony. One of the very things he urged upon the House in intio ducing the Bill was that Provincial Governments, almost without exception, looked ai the financial requirements of their small districts, irrespective of the colony’s requirements. The member for Port Chalmers rather gloried in knowing nothing of the

finances of the colony. The newly elect of Oaversham appeared to know little or nothing of the colony at large. He seemed to think Otago was the colony and Dunedin was Otago. He said, and the member for Auckland West applauded him, that the proposals of the Government were outrageous. If not in words, ho said so in meaning, that the measure was intended to provide proper government for the entire colony by making the poor parts rich at the expense iff the rich parts; that was undoubtedly policy of Government, They had always said that the provinces should provide for the government of the colony, and so long as they occupied those benches that would he their object. He would like to say a few words about the preparation of the Bill. He had heard wonderful stories from the Opposition thereabout: that it had been prepared by one person, then by another, and latterly had not been prepared at all ; so much so, that nobody would acknowledge it. . The Bill was the work of the Government, and of the Government alone. It. was prepared in the Government offices, and solely by Government officers. In June last it was decided to include all the provinces in the Bill, and in the Governor’s speech it was clearly indicated the course the Government were going to pursue. In obedience to a resolution of the House, the Bill had been drawn to do away with the provinces in the North Island, and the House would be asked to decide whether it was not ripe for doing away with the provinces in the South Island also. If members would look to the Bill itself, they would observe that the clause abolishing the provinces provided that the whole of the provinces were taken by name, and therefore it was competent for the House to strike out any one of those, and the Bill remained intact with the rest. So much for the manner of the introduction of the Bill. The Government had been much blamed for not having obtained the opinions of the law officers at homo. The Opposition made a great point of that. Ho asked the Ho'\se to recollect the remarkable petition which Sir George Grey sent home to the Secretary of State, in which the great complaint against' the present Government was that they had sent home the Premier with the object of obtaining (and the House should mark this) authority for that House to deal with this question, and a little further on the hon gentleman told them that no person in the colony could be’authoriaedto communicate with the Home Government on the subject. To his (Major Atkinson’s) mind this was a very remarkable statement, because it appeared to him to mean this, “ You are not to be trusted with your own Government, the people cannot be trusted to know what is good for them. Yet the hon gentleman said that in this colony they were building up a great nationality, but in the same breath said we ought be kept by the authority of the British Parliament. The House had had some interesting descriptions of the financial condition of Auckland, particularly fiom the member for Parnell, who appeared to be very indignant because he (Major Atkinson) in his financial statement had spoken of the financial condition of Auckland as a public scandal. The hou gentleman appeared to be very sensitive on the point, but he contended that the statement he then made was perfectly fair legitimate argument, considering it with the context. If the constitutional form under which they were now living precluded them from doing proper justice to all the districts- of the colony alike, it was a reproach, not to Auckland, but to that House, for allowing such a state of things to continue. [Hear, hear,] That was the legitimate burden of his argument. (The hon gentlcina i then quoted Mr Wood’s financial speech to the Auckland Provincial Council, in which he spoke of the condition of Auckland’s finances as not decent, and said it was impossible to carry on without General Government assistance ) He submitted that according to Mr Wood’s own showing, the financial condition of Auckland was indecent. [Cheers] Where then was the insult to Auckland? Bathe would analyse Mr Wood’s statement to that House, wherein he stated that Auckland was out of debt, and had paid every farthing she owed. [Mr Reid: “Poor Auckland.”] He confessed he was surprised at the hon gentleman’s assurance in making such a statement which was so incorrect. Why, at the very time he was speaking there was an overdraft of over £3OOO at the bank. Nevertheless, the hon gentleman made the statement supposing the debt paid off. The House would recollect that the last House advanced £4OOO to Auckland, not for ordinary expenditure, but for local public works. Ou the very morning Mr Wood made that statement, he came to him and said, “ We have got a little overdraft at the bank. You might let me have that £6OOO, which will be due in six weeks.” But he was slightly incorrect. This was actually said to the Colonial Secretary, who referred the hon member immediately to him (Major Atkinson). Ho (Major Atkinson) said there was no good Auckland paying high interest for an overdraft, and the province could have the money then, instead of waiting six weeks for it. With that money the hon gentleman paid off the overdraft ; and he made that statement to the House. He appealed to the House was it fair and justifiable ? But the money was not applied to public works in Auckland, it went to pay salaries. (Loud cheers.) That was poor but honest Auckland, under the treamrership of the member for Parnell. [Mr Wood— “ Thanks.”] Next they had the members for Rodney and Auckland treat upon the Auckland province. He would not go into the question of the action of the Auckland Provincial Council. The Superintendent of Auckland wrote to the Government requesting that there should be handed over to him a detachment of the armed constabulary now doing duty in the city of Auckland and suburbs. The General Government did not feel justified in doing that. A letter was sent to the Superintendent, saying as soon as he had announced to the General Government that the province had taken ov.r the police duties they would withdraw their force; and fuithcr, they would require the men in their service, if they so desired, to volunteer to the provincial force. There they remained to ibis day; but the General Government absolutely declined to hand over the police force of the colony to any province. [ Jheers.J There wasanotherpoinlhe wished to refer to before leaving Auckland. The member for Auckland West was very eloquent upon the colonial Ministers absorbing the revenues of Auckland to meet the requirements of the General Government ; and the member for Newton detranded that Auckland should be separated, and have handed over to her hoi revenues. He had prepared a return showing the position of Auckland if allowed to sepu-

rale from the colony immediately, and he hoped the member for Newton would take comfort from it. Speaking in round numbers, the interest on the public debt of the colony was £750,000 a year. Assuming Auckland’s share of that at £150,000, ami she would certainly have to pay that, because a considerable amount of the loans had been spent within that province ; then her provincial debt was £40,000 a year : the GeneralGovermnent departments which would have to be taken over amounted to £64,000, and the Provincial Government departments £60,000 ; administration of lands, £IO,OOO ; permanent charges, £14.000 ; executive departments ami miscellaneous, £32,000; postal subsidies, and he supposed Auckland would communicate with the outside world, £24,000. Total liabilities for the year, £390,000. Now the total revenues collected by the colony from Auckland was £310,000 yearly. They would collect £20,000 for ordinary lands, and this year they might get £45,000 from confiscated lands. Hence they would have a total of £375,000, or a deficit of £15,000, without providing for public works or education. Would the House and the country admit that the colony was sponging on. Auckland, as the strong terms used by the member for Auckland West led them to believe. He did not wish it to be thought foi a moment that he was making an attack upon Auckland. lie had no such idea ; but he would not be doing his duty if he allowed the statement to go unchallenged that the colony was robbing Auckland, [Cheers.J The speech of the member for the Hutt he would take other opportunities of answering. What where the points at issue. The supporters of the Bill contended that the Provincial Governments being no longer necessary ought to be abolished, and that being recognised, the sooner the better ; secondly, until they were abolishedasoundsystcra of finance was impossible ; thirdly, theabolition of the provinces is absolutely necessary to secure the localisation of the land revenue, and to provide endowments for local bodies; and, lastly, the proposals of the Government effect these purposes. On the other hand it was contended that the Provincial Governments must be maintained as safeguards of the liberties of the people; at any rate no alteration should bo made until after the general election ; second, that the proposals of the Government are meant to conceal a deficit in the revenue by seizing the Provincial revenues, especially (he land fund ; thirdly, under the proposed abolition, the land fuud is not to be localised, and the endowments not secured ; fourth, the proposals of the Government were a sham, and should be rejected. He was very much struck by the member for Caversbam’s speech, because it differed from all the other speeches by the Opposition members, in that he- apparently thought no change was necessary. The latter further argued that it was not the duty of the Opposition to submit a policy to the country. He entirely agreed with him, if the Opposition functions were simply confined to criticism, but when a change was absolutely necessary, and when the people so declared, the Opposition were not doing their duty, if they considered the Government proposals wrong, unless they submitted counter proposals which would enable them to get on the treasury benches, and enable the country to get what it really required. He agreed with Mr Macau drew that the colony groaned under too many Governments. The member for Oaversham told the House that the Government would not have a majority in Otago. Mr Stout—l did not say so. Hon Major Atkinson —According to the member for Auckland West, they should get nobody’s support in Auckland, and according to the member for Avon undoubtedly they would not get a majority in Canterbury ; and now, according to the member for Oaversham, they would not get a majority in Otago. Where was the Government majority to come from ? According to the member for Oaversham, the Government supporters in Otago were not settlers but capitalists and loafers. He commended that statement to the people of the colony. Mr Stout objected to the Treasurer putting words into his mouth. He never used the word loafer. Hon Major Atkinson had so understood him. At all events, his division of the class of supporters and non-supporters of the Bill in Otago conveyed that meaning. There had been a great deal of taik, particularly from the member for Auckland West, about the liberties of the people; the provinces protected them from the despotism of the General Government. He should like to know what liberties the Provincial Government would protect ? Could the strong Government of Otago protect a single man in Otago in his personal liberty. Could they interfere in any way or be heard in that House in regard to any law, however arbitrary? Could they in the smallest degree for practical purposes protect the people of Otago? Could they remove a single tax or burden the Assembly laid on the Should such statements about protecting the people’s liberties be seriously received by the House? To his mind the Provincial Governments were a serious obstacle to true liberty, and interfered with the Assembly being brought face to face with the people. Referring to the financial part of the question, he said the various Opposition speakers declared that the proposals of the Government were intended to cover a deficiency in revenue. The member j for Parnell, by grotesque figures, desired to show that in a most wonderful way. The member for Auckland said it was easy to make a surplus with figures, yet urged that there was a glaring deficiency. Sir George Grey’s were most serious charges, but he very much doubted whether the member for Auckland West ever read the financial statement, because attached to it were all the tables Sir G. Grey was so often calling for. But he was determined not to let the hou member alone. Any one of his high standing should not make such a statement, so calculated to injure the credit of the colony, without being in a position to substantiate it. He would turn to the financial statement and eliminate all the figures representing new services for the year, and instead of a surplus of £70,000, aa shown by his statement, they would have a surplus of £211,000, without providing £91.000 for aimed constabulary, which for the first time was made a permanent charge upon the consolidated revenue. [Cheers.] He called ou the member for Auckland West, as a statesman, a true patriot, and a man of honor, to come forward and substantiate his statement or retract. He would not leave . the hou gentleman alone, but would challenge him on every occasion to prove the truth of his statement or retract. [Cheers.] That hon member said the accounts were so muddle^

up that he could not understand them, but the truth was he did not care to understand. He then compared the sura available in each province for local public woiks under the .existing system, and that proposed in Ihe Bill, thus:— Present Proposed system. system. Auckland, deficit £21,384 available £06,062 Taranaki, available 2,888 „ 23,351 Wellington „ 99,208 „ 123,881 Hawkes Bay „ 14,935 „ 10,001 Nelson „ 22,135 „ 47,8,0 Marlborough „ 712 ~ 12,711 Canterbury „ 538,485 „ Westland „ 2.785 „ 34,443 Otago „ 163,864 „ 218,588 The several Appropriation Acts of the provinces furnish the figures, and the totals above quoted in the first column are the balances of revenue after deducting appro priations of expenditure. Ihe proposals of the Government leave £66,062 for appropriation for local public works, after providing for the expenditure. It is proposed to issue £26,200 Treasury Bills on account of the land fund for Auckland during the present year. In the case of Nelson, Treasury Bills to the extent of £7OOO will be issued. Marl borough will have an issue of £4400 Treasury Bills, and Westland £II,OOO. Altogether there will be an issue of £58,700 Treasury Bills in anticipation of land revenue. In conclusion, he desired to tell the House that it was the intention of the Government to ask the House to carry the measure through this session. [Cheers.] We intend, he said, to press it steadily on, and will set aside all other business so far as possible till that is accomplished. We mean to stand by the Bill—[Loud cheersJ —in so far as that the whole of the provinces shall be abolished. [Cheers.] We have no idea of submitting to a portion of them being abolished. We shall be glad to receive in committee suggestions which will make the Bill better, but are not prepared to receive such suggestions as are intended to modify it so that when it comes out of committee we shall not know it. Any member proposing amendment of the latter kind will not receive the support of the Government. We trust members will, after the second reading, address themselves to making the Bill effective and useful. Any reasonable amendments we will be glad to consider on their merits. As I said before, we will press the Bill forward and carry it at the earliest possible period, because we believe it is desired by the House and country, [Loud cheers. | At 1.32 the question was put that the Bill be now read a second time, and declared to be carried on tbe voices, whereupon Mr O’Rorke called for a division which was taken as follows: Ayes 52 Noes Ayes. Mr Andrew Mr Mervyn „ Atkinson „ Munro „ Ballance „ Murray „ Basstian „ O’Conor „ Bluett „ O’Neil „ Bowen „ Ormond „ Brown, J. C. Parker, C. „ Brown, J. E, „ Parata „ Bryce „ Pearce „ Buckland „ Pyke „ Carrington „ Reynolds „ Creighton „ Richardson „ Curtis „ Richmond „ Cuthbertson „ Stafford „ Gibbs „ Steward „ Harrison ~ Shephard, J. „ Johnston „ Shepherd, T. L. „ Kelly, T. „ Tribe „ Kelly, W. „ Yon der Heyde „ Katene „ Wakefield „ Luckie ~ Wales „ May „ Webb „ M‘Gillivray „ Williams Sir D. M'Leaa Sir J. C. Wilson Mr G. M'Lean Tellers „ M'Glashan Mr Ingles „ Jackson Noes. Mr Bunny Mr Reid „ Dignan „ Sheehan Sir G. Grey ~ Stout Mr Fitzherbert „ Swanson „ Hunter „ Takamohana ~ Macandrew „ Thomson „ Montgomery „ White „ O’Rorke „ Wood „ Reeves Pairs, For Against Mr Bradshaw Mr Brandon „ Kenny „ Rolle-ton „ Parker, G. B. „ Ward The result of the division was received with prolonged cheering from the Ministerial supporters. The Treasurer intimated that on Tuesday he would move the Bill be taken in committee of the whole. The House adjourned at L 45 a.m.