Want of Confidence Motion.

Patea Mail, 30 July 1881, Page 4

Want of Confidence Motion.

Mr Andrews speaking in the Assembly to the Want of Confidence Motion said, as Ministers were willing to alter their proposals, and must intend to withdraw their Bills, he did not see why they should treat the amendment as a want of confidence motion. He held that Ministers had shown themselves quite incapable of leading the House or preparing acceptable measures. He condemned the Property Tax, and advocated a Land Tax ; he also strongly opposed the Government tendency to have nominated members in local bodies. Had they really intended to carry redistribution, they should, even if details were not ready, have long ago brought down proposals of a determinate principle oh which it should take place. If the Canterbury railways were locally’ managed they would pay as well again. The. Government did not understand the requirements of the country. They had no policy of their own, and did not enjoy the confidence of the House or the country.

Mr Levin, while not approving of all the Government proposals, had not heard any preferable scheme proposed, and the past administration of affairs by the present Ministry had been so satisfactory that he would require much stronger reasons than any which had been adduced before he would vote to turn them out. '

Mr Reeves denied that Gov eminent had been instrumental in improving the financial prospects of the Colony, and referred to the fact that the neighboring colonies refused to vote money for immigration, as the maladministration going on in this colony was operating in the direction of driving sufficient population to their shores. He criticised adversely the Premier’s proposal for reforming the Legislative Council, and condemned as a whole the local governraent proposals. He would vote for the amendment. 1Mr Richardson characterised the amendment as hasty and inconsiderate. He would oppose it. He thought the Rating Bill might be moulded into a useful measure, but the Road Construction Bill was hopelessly bad, and he would oppose it. He advised Ministers to withdraw their' Bills. He thought the number of Counties should be reduced, and the administration decentralised as far as possible by increased power being to County Councils. Mr Shepherd thought the question of local government was agitating the country from end to end., He agreed that it was impossible to restore Provincialism, but something was wanting in place of Provinces in fulfilment of the promises made when they were abolished. The Counties Act did not confer any powers which could be called local government. The Government proposals utterly failed to indicate any sufficient scheme. Mr Hutchinson .said ho should vote for the amendment. t , Mr Bryce, while admitting that the Bill before the House was not entirely satisfactory,'con tended the time had come when local bodies : should rely bn, therhselvUs. He defended‘ the Government ; from a number of charges which had been made relating to colonial finance and 1 Native affairs. He thought Mr Ormond had been improperly accused of an intent- \ ion to betray the Government. They had good reason to believe he was not in accord with them, and he thought Mr .Ormond should not have brought on his | amendment without notice, and as a sur- | prise. He attributed Mr Ormond’s action \ rather to the dissatisfaction he expressed last session with the Property Tax than to any real dissatisfaction with existing local institutions. It would have been fairer ; of Mr Ormond to .have raised a direct dssue regarding the Property Tax. If Mr Ormond formed a Ministry he would probably find, it impossible to repeal the Property Tax, or carry out the scheme of sacrificing the public estate by selling railways. The country wanted existing Institutions improved and simplified, and a better system of local finance, but did

not desire any radical change in the nature of the institutions. No new local bodies were required, but ratlue that existing duplication should be done away with. He did not think the country would toler-, ate any intermediate body between the existing local bodies .and the. General Government. It was impossible to regard Mr Ormond’s amendment as other than a vote of want of confidence, and therefore, although he disagreed with many of the Government proposals, notably the constitution of the Board of Public Works, he would vote against the amendment. Dr Wallis denied the statement set up that Maori lands had not been benefitted by the public works expenditure, and should not therefore pay rates. The fact was that these lands before the advent of European enterprise were not worth a farthing per acre, whereas they had now acquired a good round market value. He had no desire to see the Government turned out this session, or to precipitate a dissolution. Still he had no confidence in the Government as constituted. Tomoana complained that justice had not been done the Maoris, and intimated his intention of opposing the Government. Mr Jones said that the local bodies throughout the whole colony were discontented with the proposals now before them, and with the present state of affairs. It was only the supporters of Government who could get the reasonable requirements of their districts attended to, and under the provisions of the Bill that evil would be perpetuated and increased. He blamed Major Atkinson for taking advantage of the failure of the Glasgow Bank to aggravate the financial difficulties of the colony. He thought that the maintenance of such a 'large force oh the West Coast was unnecessary, there being no further’danger of a Native war. Mr Pyke held that the country demanded an extensive measure of reform in local government, and large extension of powers to local bodies. The powers of County Councils were now no larger than those of parish vestries. Even sufficient funds to perform their narrow functions were denied them. If Government had improved their treasury balance it was by what he must term political robbery and violence. This was particularly the case in the ten per cent, reduction. The Natives were no more satisfied than the Europeans with the present Government. This was shown by the Native members unanimously opposing their proposals. He strongly condemned the provisions of the Rating Bill and Road Construction Bill. The country would not, and Could not, be governed from Wellington alone. Decentralisation was imperative. If not strong enough to turn Ministers out, the Opposition were strong enough to perform their legitimate functions, and prevent them doing mischief.' Mr Seddon proposed a scheme of local government, and concluded by saying that he would vote for the amendment, in order to send the House as soon as possible to the country. Mr J. B. Fisher said the issue was one between centralisation and decentralisation. To a great extent he agreed with Sir George Grey’s proposals, even to the extent of making Magistrates elective. The division, which will be found in another column, was then taken.