GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 704, 21 September 1876, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Per Press Agency .) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, September 19. The following is the continuation of the debate on MR MACANDREW’S RESOLUTIONS. The Premier said the Government were placed in a peculiar position by' the course of the hon gentleman. He had not used a single argument to show why they should repeal the Abolition Act of last session. It was a sentimental speech—that of one who thoroughly believed what he said—but the hon gentleman well knew that he was pleading for a cause that had passed away. The hon gentleman was well aware that the people of Otago did not protest against abolition. They only sought to mitigate it, or clip its wings as it were. It appeared to him from the hon gentleman’s speech, that the real object was not to give Otago the benefits of the constitution, but to remodel provincialism ; but he surely did not think they were going to relegate to an inferior legislature so important a duty. The only proper tribunal for that was that Legislature. The people of Otago were under a misapprehension as to what the real meaning of abolition was. He gave the people his word that abolition meant the taking away from Otago £150,000 a year. Now he defied the bon gentleman to prove that statement. In vain he had sought for anything coming from the hon gentleman that would go to prove it, and he had asked his friends if they could show him where he could obtain any figures of the hon gentleman that would prove his statement. For his own part, he would undertake to prove that Otago would not lose a penny of her land fund, but the onus of proof that his statement was not the fact lay with Mr Macandrew, who had made the assertion. The hon gentleman should remember, that were it not for the firm attitude taken up by the late and present Government, the land fund of Otago would have become colonial property, and the hon gentleman who had just spoken had made himself very active in working during the session with those who desired to make the land fund colonial property. He did not deny that provincialism did good work, and was doing it but it, was not local government ; it was centralism on a small scale — nothing more. For twenty years they had tried provincialism and had never found that they could supply good and fair government to all parts alike. They were not able to distribute the revenue evenly; one part rolled in wealth while the other starved. Much as had been done for Otago by provincialism, he ventured to say that the scheme of public works carried out by the House had done more for that province than ever provincialism had during its whole history. The House should recollect that if this resolution were carried they must revert to the position they were in before, or else probably they would have one portion of the colony becoming a province again, another a county or counties, and another a separate colony. In conclusion he would ask the House what could be the end of such a state of things. Sir George Grey said that the appeal of the Premier was of the most sordid character. It was nothing but money, money ; nothing about freedom or the rights of people. They asked what position would they be in ; why the Government were always in difficulties, and always whining to be assisted out of them. What did the House care for those difficulties? It was mere evasion of Government to provide for those difficulties. It was a mere evasion of the Premier to say that Mr Macandrew advanced no argument ; why, he advanced every argument. They were told that the people of Otago knew not what abolition meant; he would tell them it meant a few large estates, a governing class, and a nation of serfs beneath their feet. Instead of establishing a noble class, sprung from feudal ages, it would rear up a class of monied aristocracy, who would have the people struggling for a pittance. Had the present Government given fair openings to talent and worth ? No, they had prevented the land fund from becoming _ colonial revenue, and they now required the people of Otago to fall down and worship the Ministry. Every true and noble heart in the north of New Zealand would refuse-, to barter the rights and privileges which the people were entitled to enjoy. When the people ot Otago and Auckland came together they had no difference as to the land question, and nothing could be more wicked or malicious than the action of the hon member at the head of the Government in coming between them, and exciting the jealousy of one against the other. The province of Auckland had had given to her by the greatest

Legislature in the world the power to have what form of government she liked, and was that bon gentleman to give them a form of government ? No! no! no! never! Where were their Bills to give their much talked of local government ? They were shown some Bills, but no sooner had they seen them than they were flown. Not a single piece of machinery had been prepared to carry out the promised local government. They were told that abolition was a fact, but he denied that it was a fact. It would never be. He denied that proper information had been sent home to her Majesty when the Bill was gent home. Let them look at the despatch. Abolition could never become law unless by leave of the Provincial Councils, who must pass a Bill divesting themselves of their powers, and until the people of each province declared they wished for abolition. The hon gentleman then went on to show how the Government had squandered the resources of the colony to an untold extent, and created a debt greater than was ever known proportionally in any country in the world. They spoke of a system of public works. He considered it a system of bribery. If the Superintendent of Otago announced his intention to consult his Provincial Council, he would also consult the Provincial Council of Auckland. He did not think the people of New Zealand so base and degraded as to surrender their rights into the hands of any set of professional politicians. Mr Mandees could not support Mr Macandrew’e resolutions in their present shape, but he could not vote against them, in consequence, he explained, of some previous action he had taken in the Otago Provincial Council. Still, he felt bound to say that hie sympathies were entirely with the Government in their scheme of local government under abolition.

Mr Reid regretted that the Government instead of coming forward in so defiant a manner had not endeavored to meet the wishes of so large a body of people. He saw no hope of their getting local legislation from the House this session. It was a mistake last year not to have allowed the local legislatures to meet. Had they done so, he believed they would have devised some system to follow them. He ridiculed the assertion that not one farthing of their land revenue would be taken, that did not agree with the statement previously made by the Premier, that one part of colony was starving, and another rolling in wealth He failed to see what objection there could be urged against so reasonable a request as to allow the people of a province to say what form of local government they should have. Some might be in favour of modified provincialiem, some of counties, and some of Boards of Works, but between them they would evolve some system acceptable to ail. The whole of the people of Otago were agitated on this quest : on, and he made bold to say if it was left to the people of Otago, nineteen-twentieths of them would decide in favour of leaving the question to be settled by Provincial Councils. _ Surely, in a case of this kind, it was not wise to fly in the face of the people and force upon them what they were opposed to. Hon Mr Reynolds said it had been said that the administration of the police, gaols, and branch railways would be centred at Wellington, but they would not be more so thin the administration of the Customs, Post office, &c, and no one would say that that administration did not give satisfaction. He was at a loss to give his opinion on this matter, While he would like to do the best he could for Otago, he must regard the resolution as a motion of want of confidence. Who were they going to put in if they put those gentlemen off the Government benches? (Mr Reid —“ We would put them back again nest day.”) He felt on this question like a man between two housebreakers; the mem hers of the Opposition on one hand, and the members supporting the Government on the other, all trying to break into his dwellinghouse (Otago). He would rather place confidence in the gentlemen now on the Government benches, than in any Government the Opposition could form. Though he confessed he did not agree with the PostmasterGeneral’s views, he was satisfied that Mr Macaudrew could not prove his statement that abolition would cost Otago £150,000 a year, and he had gone into the question. The bon gentleman quoted a series of statistics to show that if the Abolition Act was carried out in its entirety it would provide a better form of local government than the province ever had before. The proper course for the mover would be to move the previous question, and when the Government came down with their amended measures, if they did not provide suitable local government, then go in for some plan better than his resolution, which was neither one thing nor the other. He would oppose the resolutions. Should the provincialists have the opportunity of manipulating another election in Otago with the sinews of war at their back, he made bold to say the result would not be the real verdict of the people. Mr Buens supported resolutions. The refusal to grant these resolutions would be as a spark in a barrel of gunpowder in Otago. It would raise up a barrier between the people of Otago and that Assembly, that would be very difficult to pull down. The hon gentleman used many arguments similar to those of previous speakers. He denied that the public works scheme had done anything for the province. For whatever advancement the province had attained no thanks were due to the General Government or the public workn scheme. He argued that abolition would absorb all I heir revenue and then allow them to tax themselves.

Mr Fyke said they were constantly being told that the people’s rights could only be conserve.d by the representatives of the people in the Provincial Council. Why a greater slur could not be cast upon that Assembly than to say that a parish vestry was a more cempetent body to deal with the question. There were a number of members in that House who constantly talked of Dunedin as if it were Otago. Well, he would tell them it did not represent anything like Otago ; because there were thousands of people in Otago whoso silence showed they were content with the Government proposals. In answer to the statement regarding the enthusiasm in Dunedin in favor of provincialism, he would point out that out of over three thousand electors in Dunedin, no fewer than nine hundred voted for Mr Macandrew and provincialism. At Roslyn in two meetings there were only sixty persons out of 900 electors. The hon member went on to show that attempts had been made to stir up the constituents of Dunstan against their representative, but they declined to do so. He regretted the resolution was not drawn np bo that he could rote for it. He

was prepared to vote for the resolution if they left to the existing Provincial Council the determining of what form of local government they would adopt. Mr Stout did not think it statesmanlike to force upon one-fourth of the people of the eolony something they objected to. Were those who were continually talking of having the people with them, afraid of remitting the question to the people of Otago? In reply to the statement that Otago would lose nothing, he would say that was putting it upon a money footing, but that was a sordid idea, and quite unworthy of any brave, free people. It had been said that the financial condition of the colony compelled abolition, and yet they were told the provinces were to lose nothing. Why, the two statements were irreconcilable, and he could never see how it was to be done. If the colony wanted more money, why not raise it in a straightforward manner, and if the land of the colony had largely increased in value, why not get money from owners of that, land ? The hou member then went on to show that the county system would be more expensive than provincialism, and then to show that a great deal was lost in giving up that system, such as control of police, gaols, lunatic asylums, and to some extent charitable institutions, &c. The power of passing their own local laws was very dear to all Englishmen, and that was to be taken away from them. Even supposing abolition put into force it must not be thought that all would then become peaceable at once. They had trained the people to look to this Parliament for bribes and they would very soon find that there would not be a district that would not be dissatisfied if they did not get their road or bridge or harbor. Then they wouW combine'and tell the Ministry if they did not get what they wanted they would vote against them. There would be no high ideal on which their politics would turn. The colony was going on at the rate of a thousand per day ; they were living on Treasury Bills, and those who were now deluded by the Government would yet find these bribes would be a delusion and a snare. This resolution was not intended as a vote of want of confidence, because it did not conflict with the Government scheme. In conclusion, he said his feelings were so strong upon this matter that if his colleague, the member for Dunedin, would leave the House, he would follow him, and he was only sorry the Superintendent had not called his Council together in spite of Parliament, to which he had deferred too much altogether. Mr Wakefield opposed the resolution, which did not recognise the colony as an entity at all, and it was not to be wondered if the House gave it a curt dismissal. If they granted this demand for autonomy to Otago, it would be most disastrous to the colony. In less than a week Ihey would have a similar demand from Auckland, and yet that province could not carry ou for a week. He ridiculed all idea of insurrection in Otago, especially in its commercial centre, the L prosperity of which depended upon peace. These excitements had frequently been got up in Otago before. Never was there a greater bogie held up against Government. The people of Dunediu valued their property, peace, and welfare too much to appeal to insurrection. They would be no poorer, nor sleep less easier at nights after abolition than before it. The main cause of any feeling of excitement throughout the colony was chiefly caused by the Ministry failing to bring down earlier a good scheme of local Government, They were now at the end of the session without absolutely anything, and they could not be exonerated from that. The resolutions were narrow, local, and quite unworthy of the House. Mr W. Wood supported and Mr Gibbs opposed the resolutions. Mr Shrimski pointed out that the last election in Otago showed that the people ot that province were in favour of provincialism, la the last Parliament there were only six united members from Otago ; in this Parliament there were nineteen united to preserve provincialism. He did not blame the Government in this matter ; they were misled by journalists who represented only thtir own opinions. He appealed to his own election, when he opposed the old member, who though an able and energetic man was yet beaten by a large majority. However bad Oamaru had been looked after by the Provincial Council in the past, it had nothing to complain of now. The division was then taken, and Mr Macandrew’s resolution lost by 37 against 24. The followiag is the division list; — Ayes—37 Mr Andrew Mr Macfarlane Major Atkinson Sir D. McLean Mr Baigenfc Mr G. McLean Ballance Montgomery Barff Moorhouse 0. C. Bowen Murray-Aynsley Mr J. B. Brown Ormond Bryce Richardson Carrington Richmond Cox Rowe Gibha Russell Harper Seymour Henry Stafford Hunter Stevens Hursthouse Tribe Johustou Whitaker Kelly (teller) Williams Kennedy Woolcock Kenny Noes—24. Mr J. 0, Brown Mr D. Reid Burns Rolleston DeLatour Seaton Dignan Sheehan Sir G, Grey Shrimski Mr Hislop Stout (teller) Joyce Swanson Lumsden Takamoana Macandrew (teller) Thomson Murray Tole Nashe R. G. Wood Rees W. Wood. Pairs—Mr Reynolds and Mr Larnach. The House went into committee of supply, but progress was reported immediately, and the House adjourned at 1,40 a.m. Wednesday, September 20. The House met at 2.30 p.m. MR SMYTHIES’ CASE. Mr Reynolds asked whether the Government would cause to be circulated the affidavits of Messrs Russell, Haggitt, and Macasaay in connection with Mr Smythies case, before the committal of the Law Practitioners Act Amendment Bill. Hou 0. C. Bowen said ho would as soon as he could get a copy from the Supreme Court. TELEGRAPH EXTENSION. In reply to Mr Sheehan, Mr Whitaker said they did not intend to connect the

central Kaipara and Wairoa districts with the telegraph system north of Auckland until such time as they had money for that purpose. RETURN. Mr Woolcock asked for a return showing the number of persons appointed to offices of emolument whilst being members oi either House of Parliament during the last ten years. The return to the names and offices with dates of appointments. The Premier said he would offer no obaction. NEW ZEALAND FORESTS ACT REPEAL BILL. Mr Macfarlane introduced a Bill to repeal the Hew Zealand B’orests Act, 1874, which was read a first time, PAYMENT OF MEMBERS Mr Larnach moved —(i) *• That this House will to-morrow resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider an address tohia Excellency the Governor praying that an additional sum may be placed on the estimates for the purpose of defraying the expenses of members of the House in connection with their Parliamentary duties during this session. (2). That such additional sum be estimated at the rate of £3OO for each member.” The hou gentleman quoted the case of Victoria, where railroad communication was much more plentiful than here, and where a member could visit his family at least once a week without interfering with their legislative functions. The Premier said the Government would oppose the motion when it came on in committee.

Mr Burns gave notice that he intended to move —“ That members be allowed 20s per day for expenses, from the day of prorogation inclusive.”

Mr Swanson said he would support that, and hoped the Government would oppose the other. The hon gentleman said he would sooner see a special tax levied upon the constituents in the different districts. That was one way of suiting Taranaki and Hawke’s Bay, The hon gentleman then spoke in strong terms of the system of large honorariums.

Hon Mr Stafford said the motion was inopportune, especially when the prevailing demand was for decided retrenchment. Members now proposed that they should be paid at the rate of £9OO a year. He thought 15s a day enough to defray any ordinary expenditure, and at present they were paid at the rate of £1 per day for five months. He was sorry that the Government did not oppose the motion at once, and thereby have one discussion, for when in committee members would be speaki- g two or three times. There were many men in the House whom £5 per day would not pay for leaving their private business, but they should consider that when they went before their constituents. Mr Fisher thought that the present honorarium was sufficient.

Mr Murray gave notice to move—“ That after this session no honorarium should be paid to members of either Houses.” Mr Fyke supported the motion. He said that the proposal not to pay members reminded him of the story of the Scotch laddie who, when asked what wages he wanted, he said he did not want any wages, he would pick up one thing and another about the house ; that would pay him. So it would be with members who would not be paid ; they would pick up enough about the House to pay them without any honorarium, He pointed out that the resolution only dealt with the present session. Mr Reid opposed the motion. He was afraid of the effect this would have in the future. It would bring forward a class of representatives to whom £3OO a year was an inducement, sometimes so great as to make them forego their convictions, and take up any popular cry at any rate. This was no time to bring forward such a resolution. To his mind the old system was the best. The present seemed to be more in the nature of a contract, and therefore bad in principle. The member for Newton’s proposal he thought novel, but not good. Mr Harper opposed the resolution. The present honorarium was ample, and with a view to test the matter he moved the previous question. Hon C. C. Bowen said the Government did not think that there would have been any discussion at the present stage, and he could not see why there need be two discussions. The practice of paying members in Victoria and N. S. Wales bad not led to such results as to encourage them to copy their example, because from all that could be learned the tone and character of the Assemblies in Victoria and New South Wales had been lowered ever since the introduction of the system of payment. Mr Stout did not object to payment of members or to professional politicians. It was better to have profess'onal politicians than to have men coming up to Parliament who knew nothing of politics, and never read a word on political economy. If they only allowed members’ ordinary expenses, -why would they not apply the same principle to Ministers? If they were opposed to the principle of payment, why did they raise the honorarium to £l5O. They talked about corruption in the United States. Well, take New York, the most corrupt State in the Union, and compare the laws with those of New Zealand, and they would find that there was no comparison between the American laws and those of New Zealand ; and as for Victoria, her laws and her Parliament were infinitely superior to those of New Zealand. It was said that to pay members would demoralise them, but the reverse rather would be the case. If they paid members it would render them more independent of the Government than they would otherwise be, and they would not require to pass so many Disqualification Acts. Runholders were the first to protest against the payment of members, and they were the first to rush away from Parliament the moment the shearing season came on. Regardless of what the public business might be, they made Parliament a convenience.

Mr R. Wood saw with regret the successful attempts made of late to increase the honorarium of members. He thought this was a question that should have been put to the constituents before they came to the House. He would support the Government if they would resist this resolution to the extent to say, “Gentlemen, vote how yon may we will not put the money upon the estimates.”

Mr Rowe said if the principle of payment of members had been introduced before, New Zealand would be better off, and have had a much better Parliament. He knew the Victorian Parliament before there was payment of members, and there was no comparison between now and then, and it would be a good thing for the New Zealand Parliament to take a few lessons from the Parliament of Victoria.

Mr T. Kelly supported the previous ques tion.

Mr Macfaelane was not favorable to any change. Mr Woolcock said this was not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but of principle. If they did not pay members, thetask|[of legislation must inevitably drift into the hands of the wealthy class, while the bone and sinew of the country would be shut out from the House. If there were more of the working class in the House, the wealthy class would probably have to contribute more out of the increased value given to their lauds. Mr Kolleston was in favor of the old system of honorarium. The present time was singularly inopportune to bring forward such a motion, when the intention was to cut down the estimates right and left, and to dismiss many worthy officers who had served the country for years. Mr Thibe said the action of the Government in this matter wan milk and water, and not worthy of any Government. He thoroughly agreed in the principle of payment of members, and only regretted the question had not been dealt with last session. If the country wanted the work done well they must pay for it, Nearly every constitutionally governed country in the world paid its members, and members of the English Parliament he believed were indirectly well paid. The mere fact of having M.P. after their name possessed considerable pecuniary value.

The first resolution was then put and agreed to by 30 against 25. The latter part was then withdrawn. Several members voted for the first resolution who would not vote for the second, merely to have the ques tion discussed in the course of the afternoon, the hinemoa. Mr Eolleston asked Hon G- McLean if the Government knew anything of the Hinemoa, and her plate that had cost £I6OO. Hon Mr McLean replied that the papers knew a great deal more than the Government about the matter. He would give any information if he had it. The House rose at 5.30. At the evening sitting, a very long discussion took place upon the Maori Representation Acts Amendment Bill. A number of members warmly supported giving the Maoris seven members instsad of four as at present. Others strongly objected to the double power of voting now enjoyed by the Maoris. The Government wanted the Bill withdrawn until they could consider the whole matter of the representation of the Maoris and Europeans during the recess. At length all the clauses of the Act were struck out except the eight, which was amended so as to secure the seats of the present Maori members during this Parliament (supposing no intermediate legislation takes place), as according to the present Act their terms end in October, 1877.

The only other business of interest was Mr Pyke’sJGold Duties Act 1872 Amendment Bill, the object of which was to reduce the gold duty from 2s to Is. After a great deal of debate, a compromise was come to, and the amount made Is Cd, after which the Bill was read a third time and passed, and the House adjourned at 1 a.m.