PARLIAMENTARY.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2283, 27 July 1881, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY.

[PEBSB ASSOCIATION TBIEQBAM.] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, July 26. The Council met at 2.20 p.m. In reply to the Hon. G. John eon, The Hon. F. Whitakbb eaid that Sir J. Goode's report on all the harbours, including Gisborne, would be laid on the table in a fortnight. A Bill for the further Limitation of Actions and Suits relating to Real Property (Hon. F. Whitaker) was read a first time. The Wellington Queen’s Wharf and Stone Sale Bill was read a third time and passed, as was the Crown Suits Bill. On the Hon. F. Whitakbb’s motion, the committal of the Licensing Bill was postponed for a week, until the question of confidence had been disposed of. The Vagrant Act, 1866, Amendment Bill (Hon. Colonel Brett) was read a second time. The Married Woman’s Property Protection Bill and the Port Chalmers Drillshed Bill were passed through committee. The latter was read a third time. The Council rose at 6 p.m. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, July 26. The House met at 2.30 p.m. EEPOBT. Mr Mubeay tabled the report of the Industries Committee, recommending that the same duty be imposed on imported maiae, except from Fiji, as on other cereals,(and that the duty on tobacco grown in the colony be reduced to one shilling per pound for a period of fire years. QUESTIONS. Replying to Mr Sutton, The Hon. W. Rodlbston said that the Fraaerton Ferry reserve and Tarapatiki reserves surveys would be completed in a few days, and they would then be vested in the Wairoa County Council, Replying to Mr McDonald, The Hon. W. Rodlbston said that Government was not aware of any members of the Waste Lands Board, Auckland, having resigned, but enquiries on the subject would be made preparatory to stating whether or not it was their intention to rest the powers and functions now vested in the Board in the various County Councils within the provincial district of Auckland. Replying to Mr Fulton, The Hon. T. Dick said that Government did not propose to remove the gaol at Dunedin, as its present position would be perfectly suitable for some years to come. Replying to Mr Bowen, The Hon. W. Johnston said that arrangements had been made for forwarding the San Francisco mails from Auckland immediately on their arrival to the various centres of population, and no unnecessary delay in doing so would be allowed to take place. Replying to Mr Jones, The Hon. J. Hauo said that in reply to petitions of the unemployed at Oamaru Government had offered to transport these persons to such parts of the colony as they might be likely to succeed in getting employment in, but none had taken advantage of the offer. Since then another petition had been received, and on the same offer being made a limited number took advantage of it. Replying to Mr Finn, The Hon. J. Haul said that Government did not see that the proposal to amend the Contractor Debt Act would secure the due payment of wages to workmen employed on contracts.

Beplying to Mr Seddon, The Hon. W. Eolieston said that in justice to the Hon. Mr J. A. Bonor, they will cause a report to be prepared showing the outlay on Government buildings at Hokitika since the abolition of provinces, and by whom paid; also, an inventory of the furniture on the said premises at date ; also, what amount of that furniture there is on the premises at the present time.

I HEW BILL. Mr Mpheat mored for leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the duration of Parliament, to come into force after the dissolution of the present Parliament. Mr Barboh objected, contending that a Bill of this nature should not be introduced daring the last session of Parliament. The House divided—ayes, 88; noes, 34. The following is the division list:— Ayes—Messrs Atkinson, Bain, Beetham, Bowen, Brown, Bunny, Oolbeek, Dick, Fisher J. 8., Sir W. Fox, Messrs Fulton, George, Gibbs, Gisborne, Hall, Hurst H., Hurst W. J., Hursthouse, Kelly, Levestam, Devin, Macandrew, MoUaughan, Murray, Pitt, Eeid, Biohardson, Bolleston, Bussell, Saunders, Seymour, Shrimski, Sutton, Te Wheoro* Trimble, Wakefield, Weston, Wright. Noes—Messrs Allwright, Andrew*, Balance, Barron, Bastings, Finn, Fisher, J. T., Sir G. Grey, Messrs Hamlin, Harris, Hutchison, Johnston, Jones, London, Mason, McDonald, Montgomery, Moss, Ormond, Beeves, Shanks, Speight, Stevens, Swanson, Taiaroa, Tawhai, Thomson, Tole, Turnbull, Wallis, Whitaker, Whyte, Wood. The Bill was introduced end read a first time.

On the question that it be read a second time on Wednesday week, Mr Babeon moved as an amendment that it bo read a second time that day six months. He said it was quite certain that’ the measure would not pass, and such being the case, ho thought it would bo better to crush it at once.

Mr Beown spoke in favor of the Bill, adding that it would bo better for tho country it elections were for life, with a proviso that on a petition being signed by a certain number of electors, members should be forced to resign. A plan of that kind would bring about a unity in Parliament that could not otherwise be obtained.

Mr Seddon spoke for the amendment, giving it as his opinion that a Bill of this kind should not be brought before an expiring Parliament. It was the thin end of the wedge which might be used for prolonging the present Parliament, which tho sooner it went to the country the better. Mr J. B. Fishes supported the motion, adding that it had now been shown that triennial parliaments were a mistake. The Hon. J. Hall said that Government had no intention of interfering with triennial parliaments, and when the proper time came they would be found objecting to any interference on that score. Still that was no reason why they should object to the Bill being brought before the House. Mr Qisbobne said that while he would object to any attempt to prolong the present Parliament, constituencies at the next elections ought to see this Bill, and have an opportunity for judging of it. He thought that tho duration of Parliament should be not less than four years, and at all events, seeing it was not to interfere with the expiry of the present Parliament, there could bo no injustice done in allowing it to be brought forward.

Mr Speight said that the change was alleged to be proposed in consideration for the poor man vrho might enter Parliament. The interests of such, he contended, were sufficiently well protected hy the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill. He was of opinion that a Bill for the repeal of triennial Parliaments, and the prolongation of the present Parliament, would be found to be immensely popular, and that many who voted for triennial Parliaments would be found now voting against them. Such being the case they ought to be very careful how they interfered in this matter.

Mr Macakdbew voted for triennial Parliaments, but he now questioned the policy of that measure. However, as it had only been passed two years ago ho certainly would not be disposed to see it interfered with now.

Mr Bowen concurred in the opinion that triennial Parliaments were a mistake, but having been passed only recently it would not be politic to interfere with it already. Mr Ebid also considered 'triennial Parliaments to be a mistake and could not support the proposal to throw the Bill out.

Mr Levin had been returned to support triennial Parliaments, and he would support them, at all events until he had gone back to his constituents, and got their views on the point.

Mr Geobgb would support triennial Parliaments, as it had only been passed during the present Parliament, but should the question come forward during next Parliament, and he bo in the House, he would be found voting against them, as he thought it would bo found that they were a mistake. The question was put that the Bill be road a second time on Wednesday week. Ayes—37. Noes—34. The following is the division list:—

Ayes—Messrs Atkinson, Bain, Beetham, Brandon, Brown, Bunny, Oolbeck, Dick, Finn, Fisher, J. B. (Buller), Sir W. Pox, Messrs Pulton, Gibbs, Gisborne, Hall, Hirst W., Hurst W. J., Hursthouse, Johnston, Kelly, Levistam, Levin, Mason, McOaughan, Murray, Pitt, JEteid, Holleston, Seymour, Shanks, Sutton, Trimble, Wakefield, Walters, Weston, Wright. Noes—Messrs Allwright, Andrews, Ballanoe, Barron, Bastings, Bryce, DeLautour, Fisher J. T., Sir G. Grey, Messrs Hamlin, Harris, Hutchison, Jones, Lundon, Macandrew, Montgomery, Moss, Ormond, Beeves, Richardson, Saunders, Seddon, Sheehan, Speight, Stevens, Swanson, Taiaroa, Tawhia, To Wheoro, Thomson, Tole, Turnbull, Whitaker, Wood, SUPPLY. In committee of supply, The Hon. Major Atkinson moved for authority to issue deficiency bills to the amount of £200,000. Mr Beowk asked the Government to state when the Otago Central, Canterbury Interior, and Wellington and West Coast Railway Bills and the new Representation Bill would be introduced. The Hon. Major Atkinson said that these Bills wore in a very forward state, and would be introduced so soon as the no-confidence motion was disposed of, Mr lußSßtrx.l. spoke of the importance of the works referred to, and the benefit that they would be to the country, and hoped that whatever was the issue of the no-confidence motion, the House would not separata until this measure had passed. He opposed the Otago Central railway vote last year, but still recognised the importance of petting the work undertaken by means of companies encouraged to do so by concessions of land. Mr Moss brought up the question of the West Coast Native affairs, and the connection of Major Parris with the West Coast Commission. He reprobated the arrangement by which the Native inhabitants of that part of the colony were placed entirely at the mercy of an irresponsible commissioner, who was said to be entirely guided by Major Parris, who was the person mainly responsible for all the troubles on that coast for the last twenty years, and who, it was believed, most unduly favored the chief Honi Pihama. He held it to be absolutely necessary that these affairs should be placed directly under the control of the Native Minister. He proposed to read a letter re the management of the commission, but on refusing to give the name of the writer he was not allowed to

proceed. The Hon. W. Bollbston said that he held himself directly responsible for the administration of these affairs. The conduct of the previous speaker in making a cowardly and scandalous attack on a valuable public officer on the authority of an anonymous communication, was most unjustifiable. The whole proceeding was one which reflected the utmost discredit on the hon. member.

Mr Moss repudiated the imputation made against him, and reiterated the charges against Mr Parris in the administration of Native affairs. He said that the whole thing was utterly wrong, and the sooner it was put an end to the better for the colony. He also ridiculed the idea of Tawhiao’s visit to the Waikato having any significance. At no previous period was the Aukati line more strictly maintained. Mr Wtiitaxhh said that Mr Moss had attempted to underrate the importance of Tawhiao’s visit to the Waikato, and as representing the constituency more immediately affected by that visit, he defined the importance and general significance of the same. Mr Siibehan said that the main proposal before the House was the issue of deficiency bills, and he objected to the whole question of Native affairs being revived and discussed on it. Ho admitted the importance of the King’s visit to the Waikato. It was merely the result of a gradual movement, and the present Government had merely succeeded in putting the keystone upon that movement. He could not allow party prejudice to[prevent him admitting the success of what had been done.

The motion authorising the issue of the deficieney bills was put and carried and the resolution reported. The House adjourned at 5.15 p.m.

HO-COHITDEHCE DEBATE, i Mr Montgomery resumed the debate on , the no-oonfidenco motion. He declined to i recognise anything as before the House hut the proposal of the Government and the , amendment by Mr Ormond. He objected to the House being called on to decide between the proposals of the Government and those of Sir G. Grey. Ha was opposed to both. Whatever the result of the present debate, he held that the redistribution of seats must take place this session. He defended Mr Ormond’s action. He objected to the proposed method of rating Crown lands, and to the constitution of the Public Works Board, which would really place eleven Ministers in the House. He also strongly condemned the method of distributing local aid. Bad as it was there was the further objection ' hat no guarantee existed that it would exist for more than a year. Local and general finance should be entirely separated. He contended that funds should be assu-ed to local bodies without reference to any central body, and that they should be enabled to perform their functions without any interference from Wellington. These were three points on which ho thought the House should insist. Towards this end ho would suggest a plan which had been approved by the Canterbury Provincial Council in 1869, when South Canterbury raised such a cry as the whole of the outlying districts of the colony wore now raising. It was then proposed to constitute a Local Board of fifteen members, elected by the people, and electing its own chairman who would have generally the powers of a superintendent. The net land fund to be allotted to immigration and local works, and for Eoad Boards. Of course immigration wag now out of the question. Large powers of making by-laws on local matters were also proposed to be given to the Board, including dealing with fencing, hospitals, gaols, police, asylums, Ac., subject to the approval of the Government. He thought that if Canterbury was now divided into two districts on such a system, it would work satisfactorily. The local bodies should also have the land fund given them, but not necessarily the land fund arising within the district. The counties could then be done away with, but on no consideration would he dispense with the Boad Boards. If gaols, lunatic asylums, police, were handed over to local bodies, taxation by that House might be greatly reduced, and the property tax be altogether abolished. The House would also be relie red of dealing with local matters, whish it was utterly incajable of dealing with satisfactorily. No new scheme, however, could bo carried until an appeal was made to the country. He gave Ministers credit for good administration generally, but condemned Major Atkinson for having caused a panic in financial matters by his speech in October, 1879. The Government, forced by the pressure of public opinion, had passed a number of measures prepared by their predecessors, but had failed miserably when called on to originate new measures. They had done well as administrators, but had failed miserably as legislators, and even now they had not puc a policy before the House. The Treasurer’s finance he regarded as thoroughly unsound in proposing to add to the public debt by means of a local loan. For these reasons be should vote for the amendment. He despaired of getting good measures from the present Ministry. Their prestige was gone, and whether defeated on this motion or not, their days were numbered. Mr Bowen denounced these motions of want of confidence, as they produced a disinclination to attend to the practical business of the country. They always became personal discussions, and were a most inconvenient form of discussing either finance or policy. In that way they were a great evil lo the country. He was inclined to think that if they could get rid of this system of party government, a great improvement would be brought about. The election by the House of a committee of administration would he thought perhaps be preferable. Ho defended the course taken by Mr Saunders as being perfectly constitutional, in saying that while he did not approve of the measure, at the same time he told them frankly that he could not vote for the amendment. The last great debate in this House was on abolition. That was a question worthy of tho occasion, not like the present question, which was one of no such importance. He counselled them to bring the debate to a conclusion at once, pass the estimates and the Bepresentation Bill, and then go somewhere else to address their constituents.

Mr Baiianoe said that they had been discussing a great question of public policy, and they had been doing so at the invitation of the Government. They had been told that a motion of this kind should have been brought forward by an organised party. The motion had been brought forward by one of the best organised parties that could he conceived of. It was one of the strongest Opposition this Government ever had to contend with. Under these circumstances he would like to know what the previous speaker desired. If they were not to have party government, what were they to do F Were they each to act upon the dictates of their own sweet wills ? They had heard that these Bills were to bo withdrawn and taken to the country. In that case it was but right that they should each have an opportunity for expressing their opinions freely on the point. He recognised the fact that it was quite impossible to restore Provincialism, and there was no use of setting up that as the question at issue. The real question was, had the Government rightly understood the requirements of the country, and brought down a proper scheme of local self-government. The Premier seemed to have a very indefinite opinion of what local government really meant. They were not bound to pin their faith to those four large communities—Otago, Canterbury, Wellington and Auckland. Other communities had arisen since these places held sway. They heard dissatisfaction from all quarters concerning the existing state of local government. It had been said that there was no desire for amalgamation or for larger counties; indeed he believed that the tendency of the counties was to reduce themselves to the status and functions of Boad Boards, and yet the Government proposed to give them facilities to amalgamate and form themselves into larger counties. They wanted an intermediate body between these and County Councils and the General Government. They seemed to have no idea beyond centralising as much power as possible. That appeared to be the sole idea of the Government proposals. He was quite certain that such a scheme was neither acceptable to the country nor yet to the House. What the Opposition contended for was that at least nine of the thirteen subjects which the Treasurer said must be administered by the central government should be administered by the local bodies. He instanced the case of the Sheep Act as being one of these nine, and asked if it were possible for the central government to administer it better than the local bodies. Then again as to the public health. It would not be contended that that could bo better administered by the central government than by the local bodies. The police was another subject which could best be dealt with by the local bodies, Tnere were not more than four or five subjects which ought properly to be left to the central government. The time had come for a wholesale scheme for decentralisation, and that was the point that the Government would have to face. Beferring to the Bill before them, he said that it propounded two great schemes, viz., rating Crown lands and rating Native lands. Beferring to the former, ho said th_t the rates should have been wholly set apart for opening up the country, and no portion of them used for main roads. A better scheme than the one proposed would be to appropriate say 20 per cent, or 33J per cent, to bo handed back to the local bodies for opening up the blocks and making roads to the land sold. This system worked well in reference to deferred payment lands, and should be extended to lands sold for cash. Native lands, where they bonefitted by roads, should be made to pay rates. The proposal was to pay the amount out of the consolidated revenue, and then charge it against the land when sold. These were lands that would not be sold for many years, and it would bo most unfair to pay rates on these out of the consolidated fond. It would be unfair and unwsrkable. Then again, he would say that the Government dare not carry out the policy proposed in this Bill. It meant the confiscation of a portion of these lauds, and as such Government dare not carry it out in many parts of the colony. Then again, he contended that the whole of the land fund should be spent on the land, and not the proportion thereof proposed in the Bill. He next referred to the Local Public Works Bill and the constitution of the Board. That Board would simply do what the Government now did without having the responsibility of the Government. Its constitution was based an a most vicious principle. The Speaker of the House was charged with the duty of selecting a member to fill any

ordinary vacancy. This was a most improper proposal. Then again, a bait was held out to the House which would load to demoralisation. The election of the members would be made in caucus, and in that way the funds would be distributed to favored districts of the colony. If the object was not centralisation, what did the provisions moan about retaining power to veto the Board’s bylaws. Then, again, Government retained the power of providing main roads. In his opinion the present woro very much worse than tho proposals made last session, despite what had been said by Government to the contrary. Reference had been made to Sir G. Grey’s Bill. Without committing himself to all its details, he thought that the measure to a great extent outlined tho form of local government they required. The great blot ■on tho county system was tho largo voting power given to properly. Sir G. Grey’s Bill was a comprehensive scheme, and he entirely approved of the popular basis on which the local bodies wore to bo elected. He also agreed with distributing tho funds on a population basis. Ho did not approve of the proposal to allow the local bodies to elect Judges, but ho certainly thought that tho nomination of J.P.’s should be left to them. They could not exorcise the pewer worse than it was exercised at present. He did not think that any of our Judges wore corrupt, but he thought they were possessed of political bias. Ho thought they should bo made amenable to public opinion, but not brought under tho influences of the Government of the day. They on his side of tho House always admitt ed that there should be a supremo head in the colony, but that was no reason why they should not havo subordinate functions. That was what these proposals did not seem to contemplate. They had no right to look to what might bo the probable consequences of this amendment. What they had to do was to exercise their constitutional privilege of joining issue on the proposal brought before them by the Government. Then again it was nonsera' to say that tho carrying of the amendment would prevent redistribution. That moesura could bo passed in a very few weeks. It was a notable fact that these proposals wore condemned not only by the Opposition, but likewise by the Government supporters themselves. Ho complained of the delay that had taken place in bringing down the estimates. He supported tho amendment, on tho ground that tho proposals were objectionable, and that the Government had failed to show that they possessed administrative capacity equal to the occasion.

Mr Pitt said that while the Government had been attacked on all manner of subjects, the fewest number of speakers had attacked them on the financial aspect of the measures now under discussion. He remarked as curious that none of the previous speakers had given them a scheme of local government finance such as they would wish to see introduced. It was, of course, no part of the duty of the Opposition to supply the Government with a policy, but it might reasonably have been expected that they would have made some explanations on the point if they had had any schema upon their mind. ' One great complaint dwelt upon by the moat of those who had spoken was tho absence of local facilities for redressing grievances. He did not see why that could not be remedied by giving the county councils power in that direction. His own opinion was that surveys and waste lands ought to be administered by the local bodies. The want of this local control in the district ha represented had occasioned great loss and inconvenience. The proposal about doubling the property tax, and leaving two-thirds to the Head Boards, made by Mr Saunders, was an extraordinary one, and one, he ventured to think, which would be moat unpopular. It appeared to him that Government had proposed to meet the question of local finance in a fair and reasonable way. Certainly no one had attempted to propose a more reasonable scheme. Then, again, the proposal re tho land fund was simply the devoting of it to its legitimate purpose. It was no longer to be treated as consolidated revenue, but to be kept for opening up the Crown lands. That, in his opinion, was devoting it to its legitimate purpose. He trusted that the amendment would bo negatived, as it would entail a result which would not be for the good of tho country at the present time. The Government had rendered good service to the country, and they could not well spare them from the Treasury benches just now. Mr Andbbws did not think that the House would over think of passing the Government Bills as they stood. He was astonished that they should make these Bills Government questions, seeing that it had been openly stated that what they desired was to make them acceptable to tho country. Referring to the members, of the Government individually, he had the highest opinion of them, but collectively they failed to lead the House. He contrasted the number of Bills carried by the several Governments since tho year 1870 to last year, compared with the number put forward, and showed that of late years the number on the list was much greater than it previously had been, and ho argued from that fact that of late years the Government had not taken the stand on its measures which it ought to have done. He reprobated the practice of Government delaying one class of measure to make place for others, stating that that mode of transacting business irritated the House. He charged them with taking the position of ruling the country when they were quite unable to stand by a policy. He condemned the practice of one member rising to abuse another instead of setting themselves honestly to discharge their representative duties. He condemned the property tax as wrong in principle, and spoke in favor of a land tax. Ho could not acquiesce in all that had bean said in favor of the economy observed by the Government, and instanced a cose in which .£I7OO hod been disbursed in collecting £2200. He complained that all their measures showed a centralising tendency, and despite what had been said to the contrary ho knew that there were a great many complaints by the districts against the operations of the present system. One great fault ha had to find was that the local bodies were never in any way taken into tho confidence of Ministers in dealing with matters of a local character. In consequence of that neglect the nominations of Justices of the Peace, for example, wore most injudicious. He also complained that the Government had not taken members into its confidence in connection with tho Redistribution Bill. He did cot think that tho Government was sincere in ito profession about passing that Bill, or it would ere this have settled the principle of tho Bill. The fact was that they knew it would not be acceptable to members on their own side of the House. Tho Government was much to blame for not taking a firmer stand. Ha objected to tho proposal made for rating the Native lands. The roads were not made fer the convenience of the Natives, and it was unfair to tax them. He spoke in favor of railways being placed under local control, giving it as his opinion that it would tend to mako tho railways pay better. In Canterbury, under local control, the railways would pay half as well again as they now did. Retrenchment, and all the other important steps taken, had been demanded by the country, and no real credit was due to tho Government for what they had done in these matters. Tho members who had condemned the measure, and yet professed their intention of voting against the amendment, were acting in a manner ho could not reconcile. Even if the motion wore earned, there was no real necessity for a dissolution. They would go to the country in a few months, and that ought to obviate any necessity for a dissolution now. He was fully persuaded that tho Government had not the confidence of the House or the country. Mr Lnvra contended that their first duty was to consider consequences. Ho did not entirely approve of ell tho Government measures, but still the Government had not lost his confidence, and would have to commit far greater sins before he would vote to turn them out. They hod redeemed the finances from a deficit of £1,000,000 to one little more than £SOOO. They had been instrumental in redeeming the credit of the colony both at heme and abroad. Then, again, they had passed those liberal measures which other Governments had kept dangling befere the eyes of tho country. He would have preferred something more bold than tho scheme of finance proposed; still, his opinion on that score was not by any means weak enough to induce him to reject it altogether. He referred to the fact that the Saving Banks returns showed an increase last year of £116,716. That was, to his mind, a strong proof that the prosperity of the colony was reviving. To a great extent that improvement had been due to the Government, and tho country at large had continued confidence in their administration. \ Mr Beeves moved tho adjournment of the debate, and the House rose at 11.15.