THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

Te Aroha News, Volume VIII, Issue 490, 19 July 1890, Page 5

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

ANOTHER OPPOSITION SURPRISE.

HOSTILE AMENDMENT MOVED BY HON. MR BALLANCE.

Wellington, July 16. The Financial debate was resumed at 3 p.m. yesterday afternoon, and speeches were made on both sides of the House by Messrs Macarthur, J. P. Brown, Rosa, Kelly, and Taiwhanga. Mr Kelly defended the Government in respect of the Rotorua land purchase, and said the Bank of New Zealand had nothing to do with it.

Mr Macarthur expressed his opinion that Mr Ballance’s resolutions wore aimed at the Ministeiial benches, with a view of getting the support of the Auckland members. Mr Monk interjected: “ They won’t get us,” and

Mr Macarthur replied that he was very glad to hear it. He also charged the Opposition witli having no policy, unless it were such as many of the Ministerial supporters were advocating, such .as the abolition of the prorerty tax. This concluded the list of speakers, and the Hon. Mr Mitchelson rose to reply shortly after 5 p.m., his remarks being interrupted by the evening adjournment. He commenced by referring to the friendly spirit that had generally marked the progress of the debate on both sides of the House, and said it had no doubt proved both interesting and instructive. The member for Kumara had, he said, gone bo far us to say that the Government had made a promise that a dissolution would follow in the event of the Hon. Mr Ballance’s hostile motion being vetoed, and he gave this statement an unqualified denial. Those who supported that motion did so well knowing that it could not be carried. He denied that there existed any evidence in support of the assertions made to the effect that the country wanted an immediate dissolution. The Government, however, were just as willing to go to the country as were the gentlemen opposite, and to meet the electors as soon as the law would allow them, whether the dissolution took pluce a fortnight honce or so late as the 24th October. As to the argument that some twenty of the present members would never return, he expressed fcho conviction that when the new Parliament re-assembled the position of parties would be “as you were.” The present Government were placed in power at the latter end of 1887, and have ever since been supported by a larger j majority than any previous Government. They intended to ask the House for full supplies, with the object of meeting Parliament in the first or eocond week in April next. They were also prepared to go on with the business of the country, and if the lion, gentlemen of tho Opposition were determined to obstruct and block tho business, the fault must rest upon their shoulders, and not upon the shoulders of tho Government. He said the only way in which taxation could be reduced was by getting a larger number of peoplo on the land. Retrenchment could be effected, but only by curtailing the services of tho colony. Very little retrenchment could be effected by reducing salaries. If the electors of the colony were true to themselves, they would return members pledged against borrowing. On the subject of the New Plymouth Harbour advances, he stated that although the money was advanced without the consent of tho Board, tho latter recognised that the money was due to tho Crown, and the Government would hold the coupons until that debt was satisfied. With respect to tho purchase of native lands along the line of the North Island Trunk Railway, the Government had determined not to purchase any until its title had been definitely ascertained, but he was glad to inform the House that considerable progress had been made in this direction. He defended the appointment of Colonel Trimble on tho ground of a great increase of the Native Land Court business, and urged the necessity of an assistant auditor on similar grounds. Referring to the Rotorua land purchase and certain insinuations made from the opposite side of the House, the Hon. Mr Mitchelson stated that so far as ho know, the Bank of New Zealand had not any interest in that account. He had been in the Houso for ten years, and could assuro hon. members that be had never on any one occasion been approached by the Bank of New Zealand and asked to give his vote in a particular direction. Referring to what had been done in connection with the East Coast lands, he stated that whatever had been done had been done legally and in open court. He admitted that a member of the police force had boon appointed to a clerkship in the Treasury, but the appointment w’as only temporary. When the present Government took office the colony was in a very critical condition, but lie was pleased to say there was now evidence of improvement in the condition of tho country, and the Government were prepared to go to the country and ask the electors to return, if not tho present Ministers, tho members of the present Government party, by a large majority. At the conclusion of his speech, the Hon. Mr Mitchelson was loudly opplauded. The motion tq go into Committee of Supply \yas carried without dissent at 8.15 p.mMr Monk, on rising to move the amendment of which he had given notice, was received with applause from both sides of the House. He moved that the first item be reduced by IT as an instruction to the Government that this Committee is of opinion that m further reduction of est«, ates by £SO,QOQ should be made without b«.ing injurious to tho interests of the colony. > Mr Monk said he was convinced that a | great deal of retrenchment could be made I in the expenditure of the colony, but he [denied that the action taken by the reI trenchment party was directed against He was convinced that there had l been considerable drifting and a great danI ger of a return to the old state of things, and tho object of his motion was just to place the Government in the position that, despite themselves, they would bo bound to bo econom cal. He urged that there was no warrant for the increase of tho estimates, and pointed to the great diminution there had been in the number of property tax payers. On the other hand, he said thero was a pleasant picture in the increase of our exports and in the increase of our shipping trade, but the retention of so much of this value of our exports to pay interest outside of the colony showed the great danger that would be attached to further borrowing. He had been asked to indicate where retrenchment could be effected on the estimates, but he did . not regard that as his duty. He would, however, sweep away the costly .system o.f defence and train up a militia which would be of real service in case of invasion by the only foe they bad to dread reoidivietes of the South Seas. The Hon. Mr Mitchelson said that the Government in preparing their estimates did so with regard to economy, and to the carrying on the administration of the country properly. The, Government had determined not to take this-a? a no pbn|iUence motion, inasmuch fts they could not see where retrenchment ths extent of £50,000 could be

effected without interfering with neeossary services. However, if the House saw fit to carry the motion the Government would undertake to give effect to it without injuring any of the services which were most urgently required. The Hon. Mr Ballance : “ When are these reduction' to be made V”

Hon. Mr Mitchelson : '* The Government intend to ask the House to pass the estimates as they now stand, but will give.an undertaking to cut £50,000 off services. They cannot take it off salaries.” The Hon. Mr Ballance said this was unsatisfactory in the highest degree, a most unconstitutional and improper position for the Government to take up. The Government said first they could not reduce the estimates, and afterwards that they would take it off services that ought not to be touched. He therefore moved “That the first item on tho estimates be reduced by £5, as an instruction to Government to re? duce tho estimates by the amount of the primage duty, viz., 160,000.” Hon. Mr Mitchelson replied that the proposal made by tholeader of the Opposition was impossible, and added that the Government would refuse to take back their estimates.

Mr Moss charged tho member for VVaiterrata with not having taken the members of the Opposition into his confidence, and urged him to withdraw his motion.. After a speech from tho Government side of the Houso by Mr Barron, and a reply by Mr Fish, tho Hon. Mr Hislop urged that there was nothing unconstitutional or unusual in giving the Government supplies and taking an assurance that thej would economise ns far as they could. He also quoted precedents for such a step, both in the House of Commons and by the I'arlioment of this colony in 1881, in reference to the action taken by the retrenchment party. He said they merely asked tho Government to what extent they might move for retrenchment without such a motion being tnkon as a want-of-contidence motion, and there was cortainly nothing irregular in such a proceeding. The motion moved by the leader of the Opposition, however, left the Government no option but to accept it as a motion of want of confidence. Hon. Mr Ballance, in reply, urged that the retrenchment urged and agreed to in ISBI involved a reduction upon salaries, while tiie present Government said retrenchment could only be effected by interfering with necessary services. He maintained therefore that whatever reductions were made on the estimates should be mado by the House. Mr Peacock said he woald vote against tho amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Ballance, because it was a party movement for party purposes in order to defeat the motion made by the member for Waitemata. It was their duty like sensible men to make their income meet their expenditure without further borrowing, and whatever retrenchment was effected should be made bo as to. be confined to some of the luxuries now enjoyed. Mr Seddon charged tho Government with an intention to make the reductions consented to by interfering with the education vote, and insisted on the Government indicating where proposed reductions could be made.

Tho Hon. Mr Hislop said the Government had not tho slightest intention of interfering with the education vote. Mr Allen described the amendment ae having been drawn across the scent by tho leader of the Opposition for the purposo of defeating the motion moved by the member for Waitemata.

Tho debate lasted until 12.30 p.m., when the auestion was put, a division being taken on Mr Ballanco’s amendment, with the following result: Ayes 23, noes 34. The amendment was therefore lost. The division list was as follows :

Against Mr Ballance’s amendment, 34 :

Allen McGregor Anderson Mitchelson Arthur Moat Beetham Monk Bruce Newman Cowan ' Peacock Fergus Richardson, G.F. Goldie Russell Hall Samuel Harkness Saunders Hislop Seymour Hobbs Stewart (Waimate) Humphreys Men tea th Izard Tanner Lawry Thompson, R. Macarthur Thompson, T. Mackenzie Withy Merchant For Mr Ballance’s amendment (23): Ballance Kelly Blake McKenzie, J. Buxten Moss Cad man Perceval Duncan Reeves, R. Fold wick Reeves, W. P. Fisher Seddon Fish Stewart,‘W.J, Fraser Taylor Grimmond Verrall Hutchison Walker Joyce Pairs—For Mr Ballance’s amendment : Taiwhanga Richardson Guinness Lance Turnbull Brown Fitzherberb Kerr Jones Parata Ward Brown Grey Smith - Larnach Fitchett Loughroy For tho Government: Fulton Ilodgkinson Dodson Wileon Atkinson White O’Conor Buchanan Pyke Taipua Dowri ? e Stewart Ormond Rhodes Carrol Ross : McKenzie Bryce Mr Fish twitted tho notable “ twelve” for having voted against their own professed ideas. (Laughter.) The question now was whether tho Opposition would be justified in supporting this notable “twelve ” in securing a retrenchment which was nothing but a sham. The Hon. Mr Mitchelson said the Government now recognised that there .was a large majority in the House in favour of retrenchment, and were prepared to accept tho amendment.

Mr Moss asked howlong this farce was to be allowed to go on. He asked the member for Waitemata whether this was not a pre-arranged or put-up thing, and whether it was right that twelve members should be tolerated to. continue playing this petty garoo of .keeping tho Government in 'power and- preventing a dissolution which was asked for by the country. Ho now felt it to be their bounden duty to oppose in every way until public opinion was raised.

Mr Seddon objected to Mr Monk’s motion as setting out that the Government bad retrenched all they possibly could retrench in the past-. Hon. Mr Balla'tico asked whether the <Zo< vernment meant to reduce £SQ,QGO in addi

tion to the reductions that might be made on the estimates when they were going through. Hon. Mr Mitchelson : £so,oooaltogether. Mr Monk claimed that the retrenchera had been persistently consistent in the matter, and had gained a great victory and substantial economy in the expenditure of the country. The question was put at 2 a.m., and on division, Mr Monk’s motion was carried by 43 against 7, Government supporters and the majority of the Opposition voting in favour of the motion. Progress was reported, and leave asked to sit again on Friday next. The Houso adjourned at 2.20 a.m.