PARLIAMENTARY.

Kumara Times, Issue 2781, 20 August 1885, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday", July 29. The Speaker took the chair at halfpast two o’clock. KUMARA SLUDGE-CHANNEL. Mr Sutter asked the Minister of Mines, If the Kurnara Sludge-channel No. 2, which is mentioned by him in his Mines Statement, is a Government work ; and, if so, how much it has cost, and what further sum it will take to complete? (2.) If not a Government work, who is constructing it, and is the Government subsidising it; and if there is any risk of claims for compensation for damage to other sludgechannels in the district ? He noticed that the Minister of Mines in making his statement to the House laid great stress on the Kurnara Sludge-channel No. 2. He thought it would be interesting to honourable members to know whetlier the Government were making this at a large expense, or whether they were subsidising it, or how it stood. Mr Larnach said the sludge-channel was not being constructed by Government—it was a private enterprise j but the Government had agreed to subsidise the promoters. No risk, it was expected, would be occasioned by the Government in connection with compensation claims, the promoters having undertaken to indemnify all interested against anything of that kind. The amount of subsidy promised by the Government was £2500. Friday, August 14. The House met at 2.30 p.m. After several questions had been asked and answered, Mr Seddon said that the member for Gladstone had a certain matter to bring up against himself respecting the Kurnara sludge-channel No. 2, which he hoped the hon, member would now state openly before the House. privilege. Mr Sutter said he desired it to be understood that he was not actuated by any personal feeling in the action he was about to take against the member for Kurnara. He had a communication to make which affected the hon. member very seriously, and which he thought would astonish the House. He found the member for Kurnara had been for a number of years urging that the Kurnara sludge channel No, 2 should be constructed by Government. He read a number of telegrams from Mr Seddon to members of the Government in reference to the construction of the work, he also rend a contract for the construction of the work, which was signed by R. J. Seddon and five others. His contract was for £2433 18s Id. He al so said (here were several petitions from miners praying against the cutting of 'he channel. He pointed nut that the Minister for Mines had said that the work was private property, and the Government had no responsibility whatever in connection

with it. He had brought, his motion in under the Disqualification Act, and he hoped the Government would allow him a Committee to inquire into the whole matter, as he considered tic member for Kumara had come under the penal clause of that Act for holding a Government contract whilst being a member of the House. He then moved that all correspondence and a copy of the contract in connection with Kumara sludge-channel Ho. 2, be laid befoio the House. The Hon. Mr Stout said the Government had constructed the sludge-chan-nel in question, as it became necessaiy to widen this channel for the convenience of miners. The late Minister for Mines had recommended that a new channel should be created, and the present Government had put a sum on the Estimates for the purpose last year. Owin" to the estimated cost, however, being”about £IO,OOO, be (Mr Stout) recommended that the local bodies should construct the work themselves. He said it was afterwards decided that the member for Kumara and otheis sbou’d enter into a bond to the extent of £750, so as to provide that no damage should result from the construction of the channel, and to relieve the Government of any responsibility that might be incurred in the construction of the work. He pointed out that the member for Kumara had no contract with the Government at all in the matter, and if any blame we.e to be attached to anyone it should be to himself (Mr Stout), as he had advised Mr Seddon to adopt the course he had taken. As far as he knew the member for Kumara had no interest whatever in the sludge-channel. The reason why the bond was entered into between Mr Seddon and the Government was to relieve the Government of any liability, and also to provide that no harm would result to other mines from the construction of the work. He would not oppose the motion for the production of the papers asked for, Mr Fisher asked to whom the sludgechannel would belong when constructed. The Hon. Mr Stout said to all the present miners whose tailings would drain into it, Mr Seddon said the origin of the matter was that in 1878, the then Minister of Mines had gone to Kumara, and it was represented to him that a large exodus of miners would take place unless something was done to construct a channel co carry away the tailings. On the strength of that representation the channel was constructed. He then gave a detailed account of the progress of the two channels, and defended his own action in the matter at some length. He contended that the whole transaction was a fair and straightforward one, and if any advantage had been gained by anyone in connection with it, it was the Government of the colony. He feared no Committee to inquire into the matter. The Hon. Mr Larnach said the member for Kumara had given an intelligible and truthful account of the whole matter, at any rate as far as he knew since his connection with the Mines Department. He thought the whole thing arose out of the anxiety of the member for Gladstone to show that too much money had baen spent on the goldfields. He contended that a Committee was not necessary, but thought the House should now decide the matter. Mr Hurst denied that a Committee was not necessary. Ho said it was quite clear that the bondsmen had entered into a contract with the Government, and the whole question should be inquired into so as to ascertain whether any error had been committed by the member for Kumara. He hoped the House would allow the matter to be inquired into. Mr W. F. Buckland said the Government would act wisely at once in granting a Committee to inquire into the matter. He thought, from tho speech of the Premier and that of the member for Kumara, that a prima facie case had been made out for a Committee. He considered it was a mistake on the part of the Government to endeavor to slur over the affair, and he was sure the House would accept the report of any fair Committee that might be appointed. Mr Rolleston considered the action taken by the member for Gladstone was perfectly jnstim.ulc. He inought if members of the House were to give bonds so as to secure the construction of public works it was a very extiaordinary course to adopt, and he held that the whole question should be inquired into. His opinion was that instead of the present arrangement with respect to the sludge channel being a final one, it would land the country into tens of thousands of pounds. He thought a mistake had been made in giving in to the proposal; and when u

was proposed that the Government should eute'- into partnership with the miners in constructing sludge-channel No 2, he (Mr Rolleston) had set bis face against it. He considered the Government had not acted wisely in not following the coarse adopted by the previous Government. Mr Samuels considered that it was the conduct of the member for Karaara that was called into question, and that the lion, gentleman had a right for a Committee to inquire into the matter. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.

EVENING SITTING,

The House resumed at 7.30. The motion for the production of all papers in connection with the Kumaia sludge-channel was then put, and agreed to. The Finn. Mr Stout moved—“ inat a Committee be appointed, to consist of Messrs Bruce, Oormlly, J. C. Buckland, Fraser, Hislop, Hursthonse, Moss, Russell, Sutter, and the mover, to consider the matter, and to report in ren days.”—Agreed to.