Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1880. THE DEBATE ON THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 106, 31 August 1880, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1880. THE DEBATE ON THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BILL.

-♦ The above Bill, introduced by the Hon. Major Atkinson, came on for its second reading on Thursday last. The Bill is a short one of four clauses, and provides that instead of the subsidies of £ for £ upon rates collected, there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the bcal bodies during the nine months ffom the Ist of July last to the 81st of March next the following sums — To Borough Councils and Road or River Boards, 7s 6d in the _. To every County Council 7s 6d in the £ upon either the County rates or the total of the Road Board rates, whichever is greater ; but in Counties where no Road Boards exist the subsidy is to be 15s in the £. Clause 3 abolishes the payment of the 20 per cent of land revenue granted to the Counties by section 6 of " The Financial Arrangements Act Amendment Act, 1877." Upon the motion for the second»jreading of -this Bill a very fierce debate took place on Thursday, Mr Pyke ;moving that it be read a second time that day six months. In the course ot the debate Mr Macandrew said that for the sake of getting 7s 6d for the year, they were called upon to sacrifice 20 per cent for all time to i come. Nothing could conyin.ee hjim more of their rotten political system than this proposal to deprive the local bodies of their just dues. He {puld only characterise the aftion of the % , Government iri ' bringing this Bill down as a pi_ce of the ** most unblushing effrontery. Other speakers followed in the same strain** but eventually the second *

raading^wasjcarried by 48 against 23. 1 I S_Qrtly afterwards the House went yfcto Committee on the Bill, when {Mr Macandrew moved that clause 8, abolishing the payment of the 20 per cent of laud revenue, should be struck out. The question being put, that the clause proposed to be omitted staud. part of the Bill, the House divided, and the result was a tie, there being 84 votes on each side. The Chairman of Committees gave his casting vote in favor of retaining the clause, and Mr Macandrew's motion- was therefore lost. The following is the division list : — For retaining the olHUse, 34— -Messrs Allwright, Atkinson, Beetham, Brandon, Colbwk, Fo_7 George." Gibbp, Hall, Harris," Huret.Hurafchouse, Johnston. Kelly, Kenny, Levin, Ljndon, Masters, M'Caughan, OH ver, Pitt, Kiohmond, Rolleston. Seddon, Shephard, Speight, Sutton, Swanson, Tawhai. Trimble, Wallis, Whitaker, Whyte, and Wood. Against, 34. — Messrs Andrews, Bain, Ballance, Barron, Bowen, Brown. De Lautour. Driver, Finn, Fibhor, J. T., Fulton, Gisborne, Hirst, Hutchison, Jones, Macandrew, M'Lean, Montgomery, Moorhonse, Murray, Ormond, Pyke, Reeves, Russell, Saunders, thanks, Shrimski, Stevens, St wart, Studholrae, Thompson, Turnbull, Wakefield. »nd Wright. The action of the Government in " snatching " the 20 per cent, of land revenue is retrenchment with a vengeance. To this County that source of revenue has been a considerable assistance, and, as pointed out by Mr Macarthur in his able letter to the Treasurer, which we recently published, no intimation was given by the Government until the Financial Statement, was delivered that they intended to withdraw the 20 per cent of land revenue. What makes it still more unfair is the fact that the Financial Arrangements Bill is retrospective as regards the 20 per cent of land revenue, for while the first intimation of its intended withdrawal was made on the Bth June in the Financial Statement, the payments, according to the Act, " shall cease to be payable as and from the first day of April last." Thus the Counties were carrying on for over two months, and entering into engagements upon the strength of revenues accruing to them under an Act which is now repudiated! Under these circumstances, the j warmth of the members who | opposed the Bill is scarcely to be wondered at. In conclusion, we will quote a few very forcible sentences from Mr Macarthur's letter, in reference to the financial proposals of the Government. He said : — " Further, no notice was given that the 20 per cent, of land fund would be also withdrawn, and also, as I gather, the 33 per cent, derived from instalments paid on deferred payment land until one-third of the purchase money has been paid over to the local body. These last sources of revenue have been calculated on and to some extent anticipated by us, and so far as I am aware no intimation has ever been given that they would be withdrawn as well as the subsidies. The withdrawal of the 20 per cent of land fund will prevent us opening up the districts whence such land fund is derived, and the settlers in districts where the roads are not constructed will have just reason to complain that, though rated, no portion of the rates is likely to revert to them, as the whole revenue will be swallowed up in maintaining the roads already constructed in the older, settled portion of the County."