MR. BRANDON’S ADDRESS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4595, 11 December 1875, Page 2

MR. BRANDON’S ADDRESS.

Mr. Brandon, addressed the electors in the school-house, Kaiwarra, last night. There were about thirty present. Mr. Hirst was elected to the chair. Mr. Brandon said he was happy to meet them on that occasion, to explain his past conduct and give them an idea of what he was prepared to do if re-elected. He would give them his reason for opposing the Vogel Government. It was that Mr. Vogel had sought to hold too much power, and to encroach on those functions which properly belonged to the Provincial or Local Government. In proof of this, he alluded to the Bill introduced with respect to the bankruptcy laws, and in the second place referred to the establishment of the Government Life Assurance, in which, he contended, the Government overstepped their proper limits. He should have confined himself to the establishment of a Board of Control, but to go into the market to act in opposition to other insurance companies, was to go beyond proper limits. The Government Insurance Office was like others, because, if its fund was to break down, the burthen of its demands would fall upon the people. Some persons would say a loss could not arise, but there was no knowing what might occur. The way in which they conducted their opposition to private companies was also disgraceful. Another Bill to which ho (Mr. Brandon) objected was the State Forests Bill, for which there was no present necessity, as even the Government Commissioners had informed them that the forests would supply all demands for 400 years to come. The Fiji monopoly again was an interference with private enterprise, and was going beyond the limits of proper Government functions. For these reasons, he had always been suspicious of Mr. Vogel and his Government, who had endeavored to obtain for themselves all the patronage, and then it was easy to understand how they eould secure to themselves absolute power. [Mr. Braudou here quoted an authority in support of his argument] Following cut the principles there expounded, he had opposed the Vogel Government He would now go into the question of the provincial form of government He had opposed the Abolition Bill on two grounds—first, in his faith in provincial govemmeut: and second.

so great a change in the last session of Parliament should not have been summarily carried. It should simply have been mooted, and sent to the people for their consideration. With regard to the provincial form of government, he thought it as good a form as could have been devised, always providing it was properly worked, and if abolished, he thought it probable that after generations would cau their action hasty. Now, however, thongli he had not changed his faith, he had ceased to hope that provincialism could be continued, and they must therefore now devote themselves to considering what they could best devise to substitute that form of government. The idea that had occurred to him on the matter was this. He would divide the local government between shire councils and road boards, the former elected tnennially, and the Latter annually. The road boards would take the administration of their own small districts ; the shire councils to take the administration of the country in general, under general regulations to be made by the General Government. These councils should have the control of the police, hospitals, gaols, and everything of that description within their own boundaries. He thought that would give all the power that was required for the administration of local affairs by the people. They must take from the General Government all power that would give them an opportunity of corruption. The next question to be considered was tbe financial position of the colony. We had at present a debt of £20,000,000. The whole of the last £4,000,000 had been appropriated, and by the end of the year he believed it would be pretty well expended. It was said by tbe hopeful that tbe railways would be by that time paying the interest of the debt; others said we should have to go into the market again. If we were obliged to borrow more money, we should not get it on the same terms ; and then there was a difference of opinion as to what be taxed in such case. He believed in indirect taxation, because those persons were caught who might not otherwise contribute. He called a property tax most partial and unjust. Land in this country was not the same as land at Home. To tax small landowners was unjust, because the possession of such land was obtained by hard labor, and was not inherited. He contended that a property tax should not be imposed, unless all classes of property-holders were taxed in proportion to the extent of their property. He did believe in an income tax on incomes above a certain amount, because those were taxed who had more than what was absolutely required for the necessities of life, and it would reach those who were in the happy possession of a superfluity of wealth. But he could not agree with a property tax. "Why should they tax a man who happened to Lave more land than he had, or a speculator who had been fortunate enough to make a lucky purchase. We were all speculators more or less, and to impose taxes on property would be highly improper. Another point for their consideration was the increase in the number of members of the Legislature. He believed the business of the country could be done efficiently with less, and he would decrease rather than increase the number. Regarding the honorarium, he considered that Legislative Councillors, selected as they were on account of their position as property holders, should not receive any payment at all; and members of the House of Representatives should only receive as much as would cover their expenses while in attendance during session. (Mr. Brandon quoted from John Stuart Mill) Those were entirely his views. He thought payment to members, as a salary, was improper; it induced men to seek it as an occupation when they had failed of success in every other. He then referred to what were known in England as sub-parliaments, for the consideration of local matters. Local measures should be worked in the localities themselves, because when a measure for Otago or Wellington came up in the House it was invariably left to the members representing those provinces, and thus were not so well discussed as they would have been had they been left to the Provincial Councils, or to Shire Councils which it was proposed to substitute. The estimate for the payment of members last session was about £17,000, and next year it would be considerably more, as the number of members had been increased. Mr. Brandon then addressed himsejf to the subject of federation. He was against the division of the and even making two provinces in each island would tend to separation, and that would be the most ill-advised thing that could possibly be done. He next referred to the subject of the tax on wool, of which he disapproved, and could not see why there should be a cry to abolish the duty on gold, while it was proposed to tax wool. ° He concluded by giving a summary of the views [above recorded, and resumed his seat amid applause. Mr. Alexander Cameron proposed a vote of confidence in Mr. Brandon. Mr. John Holmes seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. Mr. BRANDON thanked them, and in doing so he gave his assurance that if elected he should do his best to represent their interests faithfully. _