HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 669, 11 August 1876, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Thursday, August 10. On the House resuming at 7.30, Mr Murray-Aynsley opposed the resolutions. He favored Separation in 1862, When the colony had no debt, but it was not desirable now. If progress were de sired, unity must be consummated. Mr Mac Andrew said, if the resolutions were not carried, the colony would want £200,000 yearly from Otago. That was more to them than the unity of the colony. Carry the resolutions, and they would have the bulk of their own to spend as they liked. Years ago a Select Committee said it was impossible to unravel the accounts of the colony, and every year the difficulty became greater. There were only three courses open—increased taxation, putting their hands into the pockets of Otago and Canterbury, or retrenchment. The Government wanted to do the second, but he wanted the third, and that could be secured by the resolution. The Government had no idea of curtailing their extravagance. Fresh debts were continually being created, in connection with forests, prisons, and lunatic asylums. It was the parable of the prodigal son reversed. The parent was spending the inheritance of his nine sons. It was time they stopped the extravagance of the old gentleman. At present the General Assemby cost £35,000 yearly, probably to be doubled when the business of the Provincial Councils was taken over. The Provincial Council of Otago cost only £3BOO a year including all expenses, so if there were three Executives and three Councils in the colony they would not cost more than £9OOO each, and in all would not cost half as much as the present legislature. By adopting the resolutions new life and vigor would be imparted throughout the colony. The counties proposals were also unsuitable to many parts of the colony. The Provincial Government in Otago fostered district Government rather than repelled it. The colony would not be ripe for counties for years to come, nor had it been asked for. He should have preferred seeing two Governments for each island, and believed it would come to that. The resolutions, however, were in that direction. Otago was now paying £90,000 yearly interest on money borrowed for constructing works in the country districts out of which £15,000 were spent in the goldfields. The t'proclivities of Otago Legislature had always been to decentralise. They first set the example of giving £2 to £1 for local works. They promoted private enterprises, subsidise steamers, manufactories, introduced salmon. Had they -wasted their means like the General Legislature, he would not shed a tear to see them sink into the sea of Abolition, Mr Montgomery thought the resolutions inopportunate. The House should have gone on with the resolutions of the Government, and the feeling of the House could have been estimated by the treatment they received. He deemed the explanation of the member for Waikato unsatisfactory. The real administrative body of the colony should be the Central Legislature, but he deprecated any infringement of the compact or interference with the land fund of the districts, and though the Government were not taking the land fund openly, they were doing so insidiously. At present he desired to see the colony united so long as each island enjoyed its own land fund. The other speakers were Messrs Lumsden, Fisher, Ka aitiana, and Tole, for the resolution, Messrs Handers, Tawiti, and Gibbs in oppos tion. ' Mr Stevens moved the adjournment of the debate, and at 12 25 the House adjourned.