GOVERNMENT JOBBERY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5473, 11 October 1878, Page 6

GOVERNMENT JOBBERY.

TAPANUI- WAIPAHI BAIIAVAT. The following discussion took place on Tuesday, September 24, on the motion' that the , House go , into Committee of Supply for the further consideration of the Estimates:— The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON", pursuant to notice, moved, —That, in view of the large expenditure now proposed on railways and other public works, this House is of opinion that in future no contracts should be entered into by the Government till after the money for such works has been duly appropriated by Parliament. He had to express surprise that the motion was regarded as a vote of censure, because such was not intended, although he did not approve of their conduct in reference to the Tapanui railway. He referred to. the answer he got to the question ho asked on Friday, when the Minister for Public Works claimed that a motion passed last session was sufficient authority for the construction of the railway. He quoted the resolution passed last year, which ran as follows:—“That an address be presented to his Excellency the Governor, praying that public lands of the value of £50,000 be set apart in suitable blocks for the construction of a railway from Tapanui to Waipahi, such lands to bo as contiguous as possible to the side of- the’ railway, end shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of until such railway is completed.’' He quoted the opinion of Mn Gisborne to show that that was not regarded as sufficient authority for the expenditure, aud also quoted the language of the mover, Mr. Bastings, to show that the county councils were expected to construct the lino. He failed to understand the position of the Government, that there was no liability. He contended that there was, because the Government could not escape payment. If the Government really thought they had the power claimed, and the agreed with that view, then the House would virtually give up all control over the public works expenditure. He had felt it his duty to bring the matter before the House, aud hoped the Government would allow the resolution to pass. The Hoq. Mr. MAO ANDREW hoped the House would not adopt the resolution, not merely because it might be regarded as a vote of OciiaUro and liO IoV-QW; notwithstanding the disclaimer of the mover, could not regird it in any other light—but because to lay down such a hard-aud-fust rule might be most inconvenient in future, aud prevent the Government of the day, whoever happened to in power, from exercising a wise discretion in giving effect to the undoubted wishes aud views of the representatives of the people. On this account he hoped the House would pause before passing the resolution. Now what crime bad the Government perpetrated in this matter ? Why, in pursuance of the.aufchority f the House, certainly of a resolution of the committee of the whole—a distinction without a difference to his mind—the Government had entorcred into a contract for the construction of a branch line of railway, which certainly without exception would be the best feeder and most paying ;feeder to the main lines of any to be found in New Zealand, and would open up a large quantity of of agricultural land, and had douethis without going into the money market and without encroaching upon the ordinary revenue of the country, because no present liability was incurred. Thoro was a great distinction between present liability and deferred liability. By the time the money became due the country would have the railway, and* a largo amount of territory would be doubled in value. Ho thought the transaction was ono for which the House and the country ought to bo grateful. Ho wished that many move lines had been constructed on the same principle, and notwithstanding the uuworthy innuendoes which had been cast at him :by a section of tho Press for some time past, he had only this to say, that were a snmlar occasion to arise again he would have no hesitation in again following a similar comae, and that ho ought to do so would, he believed, bo the opinion of the House. Ho would again act upon the same authority. Mr. BASTINGS agreed that if there was ono action of which the Government should be proud it was this. True, be had said that the county councils would probably do the work, but they were not able to do it, aud then ho applied to the Minister for Public Works and Mr. Larnach, who promised to do the work. Ho spoke highly of the land in the district, and said ib would more than it was previously worth, in consequence of the railway. He referred to articles in the Press, which said the line had been made to suit the interests of large proprietors, as fabrications of falsehoods, and said ho was sure from what he had heard near him in the House that those articles had been written by those persons, Ho denied tho truth of the statement

made, and defended the policy of the Government iu reference to the railway, because it was really a reproductive work. (Hear, hear.) Had the previous Government not opposed the line he might have given them a better support than he had been able to do, Mr. BOWEN said Mr. Bastings was arguing beside the question, which was not as to the policy of making the railway, but as to the. Government haying taken the power of the purse from the House. (Hear, hoar.) The previous Government of course could not assent to a particular branch line being made in one district at the expense of other districts, and the motion was defeated. But it was in consequence of that that the matter was brought forward in a different form last year, and that resolution was declared all round the House to commit the colony to nothing ; yet the Government took that resolution as au authority to construct this Hue right off, aud had moreover constructed a line which even the resolution did not authorise. It was a different line altogether; If the Government deserved credit for anything it was for forestalling the decision of the House on the matter. He hoped that as a matter of principle, aud without regard to party, the House would retain its privileges aud pass the resolution. The case of the San Francisco service was not to the point, because that was a contract with a foreign firm, and was made subject to the authority aud approval of Parliament.

After a few words from Mr. Wood, who quite approved of the action of the Government,

Mr, SAUNDERS said ho had great faith in the judgment of the hon. member for Waikaia, and should like to see the principle adopted in respect to this railway extended. No doubt there had been excellent generalship —(a laugh)—and the greatsteadineas of purpose of the Minister for Public Works was so marked that he could not help admiring him much. Indeed if he acted in a similar manner iu regard to the .seven millions to be expended the House would be so overpowered with gratitude that it would lose its own independence in contemplation of tbe Minister. But all this was beside the question. What had been done here was to spend a large sum of money iu a part of the colony to which the Minister for Public Works was' supposed to be favorable, and without reference to the House, and hou. members were now merely asked to pay the piper. (Hear, hear.) That was wrong. (Hear, hear.) Speaking generally, he said the hon. member had shown great judgment in reference to his Public Works scheme. He had pleased everybody by his promises, but when the question came which lines *ivere to be first commenced then the pinch would come. He was greatly afraid the judgment of the hon. member would largely preponderate in favor of a certain part of the colony. (Hear, hear,)

Mr. PYICE contended that the resolution was a vote of censure- and was undeserved, because although money had not been appropriated, land, the money’s worth, had been. The Hon. Mr. STOUT deprecated tEe rema'lw of the hon, member for Cheviot as to the Hon, Minister for Public Works, as showing that the old provincial feeling still existed, and as showing that Canterbury still was exceedingly jealous of Otago. The late Government had acted similarly in respect to the mail contract, Brogden’s contracts, and almost every act of theirs. If the principle adopted in regard to this line had been carried out since 1870, the colony would have been in a much better position. Mr. ROLLESTON characterised the speech of the hon. member as a clever piece of special pleading. He denied that Canterbury was jealous of Otago, and after dealing with the subject of the construction of railways in the two provinces, said the Brogden cases, though be did not defend them, could in no degree be compared with this transaction. He coaid not possibly understand the Premier having consented to such a contract, after the professions of purity on the part of the hon. member in previous sessions. H© quoted the speeches of Mr. Reid, then Minister of Lands, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Gisborne, to show they had aU opposed the motion, but that their opposition had been disarmed by the statement that the lino would not be constructed until the House had another opportunity of discussing the subject. There wasno necessity for tho line being immediately r constructed, and if hon. members would stand the treatment to which they had been subjected in this matter, they would bow the neck to anything.' He hoped the House would rise to the occasion and show that the representatives of the people would not surrender their powers and privileges to the Ministry of the day, whoever they might be. , Sir. BARTON said he had taken the trouble to refer to the debate in October, 1877, and he found that this Tapauui line was stated to be one which it was imperatively necessary to construct. There could be .none other than a factious motive in bringing forward this motion. It was an attempt^to censure the Government in order to bring about a change of Ministry. Mr. MONTGOMERY expressedhla opinion that the Hon. the Minister for Lands did not entertain feelings for one part of the colony move than another, so far as the good of the whole country was involved. With regard to the public works administration of the honorable member for Christchurch (Mr, Richardson', be did not think it fair either that that honorable member should be charged with showing greater favor to Canterbury than to Otago;’ because three-quarters of a million more of money was speut in the latter than in the former while he was a member of the late Government. With reference to the question under discussion, he felt he could not give a silent vote. He was opposed to the Government in the matter,'and he would therefore record his vote against them, if it came to a division.

Mr. WOOLCOCIC said it would be an act of cowardice if the bon. member consented to withdraw his amendment. (Hear, hear.) A very important constitutional principle was involved. It would be far too a discretion to leave in the hands of any Ministry to say whether such and such contracts should be entered into without appropriation. If the House negatived the amendment that had been brought forward, it would be tantamount to declaring that the Government might, if it thought proper, enter into any indefinite extent of liabilities without appropriation of the House. (No, no from the Govermnent benches.) That was the logical sequence of tho amendment being negatived. (Hear, hear.) If the House placed its veto on that amendment, then the Government height incur liabilities to any indefinite amount without in the first place asking the sanction of Parliament.' (Hear, hear, and No, no.) Mr. BRYCE said that the question had arrived at that stage that it must be regarded as a party question. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) He concurred in the suggestion of the bon. member for Akaroa, and would appeal to tho bon. member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendment. It would be a most unfortunate and dangerous thing if the resolution were pressed to a division and negatived. He would, therefore, appeal to the hon. member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendment. It would relieve several hon. members from a great difficulty, and would prevent the assertion of a most dangerous principle. The Hou. Mr. GISBORNE considered that the House should adhere to the constitutional rule of allowing no contracts to be entered into before the House was asked to vote the necessary appropriations. .(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, if the hon. member for Christchurch pressed his resolution to a division, he (Mr. Gisborne) would feel compelled to vote for it; but* be quite agreed with pre- , vious speakers that after eliciting this expression of opinion on the part of the House, the hon. member for Christchurch might with propriety withdraw his motion. Mr. MOSS expressed a hope that the hon. member for Christchurch would withdraw his resolution, as his doing so would relieve a great many hou, members from a position of great difficulty. There was no doubt whatever that the resolution implied a vote of censure on the Government. If the resolution were pressed to a division he should hesitate a little before ho voted against it, but he would do so; because it implied a vote of censure on the Government which was not justified by their acts. He hoped, however, that the hon. member for Christchurch would accept the advice of the hou. member for Wanganui and withdraw his resolution.

There was here a considerable pause and loud erica of “ Question.” r Mr. DE LAUTOUR rose and said ho would like to know whether the mover of the resolution intended to follow the advice that had been given by the hon. member for Wanganui (Mr. Bryce), aud withdraw his resolution. Or perhaps tho hou, member for Christchurch would now reply, aud inform the House what course he intended to pursue. [The Hon. Mr. Richardson did not attempt to rise during the pause that here ensued.] He (Mr. De Lautour) gathered from the silence of the hon. member for Christchurch that he did not intend to accept the advice tendered by the hou. member for Wanganui. That being tlio case, ho (Mr. De Bautour) might say ho did not sympa-

thise with tho appeals that had been made to the hon. member for Christchurch. lie did not think that the resolution of the hon. member for Christchurch would be the question put. -The question to bo put was, whether the House should resolve itcolf into committee now, ami go on with the Intimates, or not resolve itself into Committee of Supply, and put itself into the position of voting for tbo amendment of tho hon. member for Ohiistchurch as a substantive motion. There was no doubt whatever, notwithstanding so many attempted denials, that this was a party question. The author of the resolution brought forward by tho hon. member for Christchurch was now behind come pillar of the House watching tho effect of this plot against tho Government. (Laughter.) The Hon. Mr, lUCHABDSON I absolutely deny that there is any truth whatever in what tho hon. member for Mount Ida has just said. Mr. HE LAUTOTJB : There arc a great many pillars in the House, and a great many people behind those pillars. Tho hon. member for Christchurch is being made use of. Tho whole thing has been written up, and wo have been treated to personnel in which that hon. gentleman is spoken of in so flattering a way as to his manner of putting things before tho House. The question which the House has now to decide is whether it will now resolve itself into Committee of Supply and go on with the business of the country, a phrase which was so much heard of last ses/on. Mr. BABPF said that if others of the Government supporters were like the bon. member for Mount Ida the Government would soon be in a minority. The first party speech that had been made was that just delivered by the bon. member for Mount Ida, and that speech was little calculated to improve the good feelings of hon. members. Ho deprecated the tone in which the hon. member for Mount Ida had addressed the House. So far as the resolution of the hon. member for Christchurch was concerned, ho (Mr. Barff) saw no difficulty standing in his way, and ho would vote against it. Mr. GOTTEN intimated that he , would vote against the resolution of the hon. .member for Christchurch. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said the Government had to thank themselves for the position in which they found themselves placed. 1 f theyhad accepted the resolution the House would have at once gone into Committee of supply. A. great constitutional principle was involved in the resolution brought forward by the hon, member for Christchurch, and if the Government had viewed it in that light they would not have been in their present difficulty. Here they had a tender accepted by telegram, when Parliament was actually sitting, without tho House hearing a single word about*it. The Attorney-General instanced the Brogdea and Panama contracts as being similar to the case now under discussion.

The Hon. Mr. STOUT : They were still more illegal. Ttie Hun. Major ATKINSON* continued : The Attorney-General said the*<e contract-* were illegal. Ho (Major Atkinson) took it that what was illegal was what was done outside the authority of Parliament. Both these contracts were perfectly legal, because they were subject to ratification by Parliament. With regard to the Brogdeu contract, it was perfectly open to Parliament to annul it if it had so chosen. If the Government had chosen to make this a. party question they must take the consequences of their acts. The hon. member for Akaroa had stated that he intended to vote according to his conscience and in- support of the resolution, because he considered the acts of the Government unconstitutional ; but other hon. members were threatened with outside pressure, and would no doubt vote against it. So far as the opposite side of the House was concerned, hon. members could nut allow it to go forth to the public that they would sit there and allow any Government to enter into contracts involving a large expenditure of the public money without attempting to exercise any control over acts so dangerous and unconstitutional. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SWANSON said he would vote against the resolution of the hon. member for Christchurch, not because he approved of the conduct of the Government; on the contrary, he thought they had done wrong ; but he would vote against the resolution because he desired that they should go into Committee of Supply and proceed with the Estimates. The question, that the words proposed to be omitted (in order that the words proposed in the resolution of the hon. member for Christchurch might be inserted in lieu thereof) stand part of the question, was then pat. The House divided with the following result:—

AY£3, 41. Ballanco Green Keores Barff Grey * Seaton Barton Hamlin Sheehan Bastings Hiilop Shrim-ki J. C. Brown Hobbs Stout J. J 3. Brown Hodgkinson Swansea ; Bryce Joyce Taiaroa Bmmy Kelly Takat. oana Carrington Macandrew Tawiti Cutten Glanders Thomson I)e Lantonr AlcMinn Tole X>iTn«n Moss Turnbull Driver Murray Pallia Fisher Nahe Wood Georze Bees Hof.3, SO. Atkinson Hursthouse Uollcston Bectham Johnston Kowj Bowen Kenny Bussell Brandon McLean Saunders Curtis Montgomery Seymour Douglas Morris Stevens Fox Marray-Aynslcy >utton Gibbs Ormond Tcscliemakcr Gaborne llichardson Whitaker Henry Richmond, Woolcock ♦ Pairs—Ayes : Messrs. O’Rorke and Feldwick. Noes : Messrs. Pitzroy and Williams. The motion for going into Committee of Supply was then put and agreed to, and after some discussion the education item was parsed. Progress was reported, with leave to sit again next day.