DEBATE on the GOVERNMENT LOCAL WORKS POLICY.

Patea Mail, 21 July 1881, Page 3

DEBATE on the GOVERNMENT LOCAL WORKS POLICY.

In the Assembly on Tuesday afternoon the debate on the second reading of the Crown and Native Lands Rating Bill was resumed by' Mr Sutton, .who spoke until ihc rising of the House at half-past five o’clock. In continuing his speech at seven o’clock, Mr Sutton reviewed the whole of the Government financial and special proposals, expressing a general approval with the exception of the Public Works Board and the reduction of the Pipperty’ Tax, to both of which he was opposed. In Committee on the present Bill he would suggest amendments. MR SAUNDERS’S SCHEME. Mr Saunders referring to the introductory speech by Major Atkinson, said Government proposed nothing, and evidently intended to do nothing. The effect of the Bill under consideration as to rating Crown lands would be to take money’ from districts where it could be profitably spent, and spend it in the midst of the wilderness. He protested against this proposal as mischievous in the extreme. The Bill was a proposal to continue the delusion that money could be obtained by jugglery, instead of by taxes. The Bill was utterly devoid of principle. As to rating Native lands, he agreed that such lands should be rated, but objected altogether to the proposals of the Bill as being unjust to the Natives, who would have no voice in spending the money’. What was proposed merely amounted to confiscation. No doubt after Taranaki and a few other places had got large sums the colony would in a few years be told it was impossible to collect the debt on Native lands for fear of creating a Native war, and then the thing would drop, and the debt never be enforced. Regarding local government, he regretted abolition without our having got anything in place of provincialism, but it was impossible now to restore the provinces as they had been, and he did not consider Sir George Grey’’*proposals an improvement. Provincial executive bodies, however, might profitably be created, and they’ should have legislative powers. He woujfl divide each Island into four provinces, each with a Superintendent and four Councillors, elected by single votes of the doctors. He would like the electors to be men and

women, voting as such, and not as property-holders. He would also have three (,'oimcillois elected by the Ro.ad Board. Toe. County Councils should he abolished, *ud Road Boards increased in number. He would stop all the present separate rates by local bodies, and let I lie House double the present Property Tax, and leave two-thirds of the amount raised in the Road District in which it was raised. This would tend to economy, anil obviate all scrambling for money. lie would also impose a tax on all unimproved land which was capable of improvement, and so prevent any good land from being held for purposes of speculation. This revenue he would leave in the hand's of Provincial Executives for works beyond the jurisdiction of Road Boards. This was a rough outline of the scheme he thought would suit the requirements of the colony. Of course he could not be expected then to enter into details. MR ORMOND’S AMENDMENT. Mr Ormond regretted that they were called on to discuss the large questions raised by the debate without having all the Government Bills before them, and before the Public Works Statement had been made. The question of railway reform was largely mixed up with the question of local government, anil railway’ reform people would have. He had carefully considered the proposals of the Government in the spirit of one desirous to give Ministers his support, but he was unable to see anything satisfactory in those proposals, which would stereotype and strengthen the present most unsatisfactory condition of affairs. Under the circumstances he felt it his duty to bring matters to an issue by moving as an amendment on the Government Bill that the whole of the Government proposals in respect to local government and finance are unsatisfactory. He did this as a private member, but with the assent of several members who, like himself, had wished to support the Government, but could not support these proposals. He felt less responsibility in this course, as Parliament being moribund, the carrying of such a motion as hifc would not affect the position of the Ministry until the}’ had appealed to the people of the colony. Still, it was with great regret that he felt it his duty to oppose his former friends and colleagues. He complained greatly of the indecision of Government in dealing with measures, and delaying bringing down their hills. He would not repeat what he had said on a previous occasion about local government, but would supplement it by saying.that he thought Road Boards useful, and County Councils useless bodies, and that the two should not be continued. The Road Board system, under a proper financial scheme, might develope into a shire system. If he could not get his own views carried out he would rather assist in carrying any of the other local government schemes which had been proposed than support the centralistic proposals of the Government. He did not think that County’ Councils should be entrusted with large rating powers. He denied that the House was really competent to undertake the redress of local grievances. Instead of the land administration being centralised by’ the abolition of Waste Land Boards, he held that the administration of Crown Lands was one of the first questions which should devolve upon local bodies. He briefly reviewed the proposals of the Bill immediately’ before them, saying it required great alteration before it could safely be passed. As to the Road Construction Bill, ho strongly’ condemned it, especially the proposed Board. The amendment was then moved.

Mr Walter Johnson said the reasons given for the amendment, and the amendment itself, were entirely opposed to each other. The mover proposed no scheme of his own, and the common' end for which Mr Ormond and the others seemed working could only be the re-establishment of provincialism. He defended the Government proposals generally, and replied to several criticisms made. The proposed Board to advance money was nothinS new in principle. It was only the adoption of a plan working most satisfactorily’ in London. They could easily remit the sura advanced to any’ one body in any one year. He believed the Government proposals' were satisfactory to the country’' if" not to Mr Ormond. They would promote colonization.

Mr Whitaker spoke, saying that Mr Ormond’s speech on the Property Tax last session was the most selfish ever delivered in the House. Mr Ormond’s only desire was to escape taxation on property’. Any idea of union between Sir George Grey and Mr Ormond was ridiculous. He felt

relief at Mr Ormond having at lastdeclared his colours as an opponent to the Government. He had evidently been so from the commencement of the session. Colonel Trimble at some length defended the Government proposals, which were well calculated to advance the settlement and prosperity of the country. Mr G. McLean thought Mr Ormond should have given the Government notice of his intention to move an amendment. As to returning to Provincialism, had the provinces existed when the late financial crisis occurred, the colony would have had to suspend payment. The Opposition Were courting popularity, and to raise money would sacrifice the public estate in large blocks. That was Mr Ormond’s proposal. Mr Fulton moved the adjournment of the debate until next day. The House rose at 12.35.