GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2697, 11 August 1894, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The Council met at 2.30 p m Wednesday. CONDOLENCE. Sir Patrick Buckley referred to the recent bereavement of the Speaker, the Hon. Mr Miller. He felt' sure that members would sympathise with that gentleman. SECOND READINGS. The Designation of Districts Bill, empowering the Governor and local bodies to alter the names of towns, streets, rivers, etc., with a view to afford better facilities for the delivery of letters where there are two or more towns, etc., bearing the same' name, was read a second time. Mr Bowen suggested that the Government should alter the name of the colony to that of Sealand by this Bill. The Destitute Persons Bill was read a i jcond time. The Council then adjourned. The Council met at 2.30 p,m. on Thursday. SECOND BEADING, The Tramways Bill, which Mr Montgomery explained was modelled on the lines of the Victorian Bill, and provided that' the promoters must obtain permission to construct tramways, was read a second time. IN COMMITTEE. The Designation of Districts Bill was committed. A new danse altering Maori names of places, towns, rivers, etc., where the native designation is incorrectly spelt, was moved by Sir Patrick Buckley, and agreed to. The Destitute Persons Bill was committed, and slightly amended in the direction of giving the control of children to the wife in cases of separation through the misconduct of the husband. Progress was reported to enable - Sir Patrick Buckley to make further amendments. On the motion for the third reading of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration B :1 l Mr Jenkinson moved that it be recommitted with a view to insert a new clause making the Bill apply to all persons in Her Majesty’s employ not included in the Civil Service. Sir Patrick Buckley ridiculed the| proposed clause, instancing the absurdity of including the police and permanent artillery in the motion, because immediately these men were ordered for special duty they might decline till they appealed to the Court of Arbitration. Mr Jenkinson’s motion was negatived. The Bill was recommitted to consider the amendments proposed by the Government, none of which were of much importance. The Bill was again reported, and the third reading fixed for next day. The Council then adjourned. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday. THE FINANCIAL DEBATE. Mr Lawry resumed the debate on the Financial Statement. He said that the whole colony had approved of the action of the Colonial Treasurer with respect to ; the Bank of New Zealand, an action that had saved the colony from a serious crisis. As to borrowing, he cared not how much money was borrowed, provided it was judiciously expended. Mr Buchanan considered that the debate had utterly exposed the pretensions of the Government to be a non-borrowing Government, when it was so clearly shown that they had added to the debt of the colony by £1,500,000 since they took office. The cheap money scheme undoubtedly meant borrowing. Major Steward said he had great faith in the Colonial Treasurer, and thought that be was entitled to great credit for the way in which he had managed the finances of the colony since he took office. Although the Budget contained borrowing proposals they were very much smaller than had been represented. Referring to the Bank of New Zealand, he hoped that the Government would not take further responsibility in the matter, as he feared that the trouble was only beginning. At the same time he could not agree that the £2,000,000 guaranteed to the bank was borrowing. Neither did he regard the £1,500,000 to be raised for the assistance of settlers as borrowed money. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 p.m. adjournment. On resuming at 7.30 Mr George Hutchison referred to the position of the public works fund, which, he pointed out, was not in a very satisfactory condition. It was a curious thing that in no part of the Budget was there a word mentioned about borrowing, although it was proposed to raise money for loans to farmers, land for settlement, and other purposes. He was strongly in favour of the proposal to devote £250,000 for laud for settlements, and would be willing to vote even a larger sum for the purpose. He contended, however, that the Treasurer might just as well have told the House that ho was going on the London market for money for those three proposals. If Mr Ward wore more candid he would bo more likely to secure support for his proposals. As to the recent banking legislation he felt that the best was done that could bo done on that occasion. He hoped that the Government would cast aside all parly feeling in the selection of a president of this institution, and ho believed that before the end of the time for which the guarantee was given the colony would bo entirely relieved of its liability. Ho was strongly opposed to the consols scheme, especially until ho knew what the destination of the money was to be. As to tho cheap money scheme, hQ

doubted whether the money could be raised at par in London, and suggested that it should be raised from the three lending institutions of the colony, namely the Post Office, the Government Life Insurance, and Public Trust Office. His summary of the Budget proposals was that the Government proposed to borrow . for three years £7,750,000, not including the guarantee to the Bank of New Zealand, and he asked how these proposals would hare been received before the last general election ? He strongly condemned the leadership of the Premier. Mr W. P. Beeves said that they had just heard a very clever speech, but he doubted whether it was likely to cbauge a . single opinion in the House or a single section of the country, because it came • from a gentleman who was so utterly inconsistent. He resented the tone of Mr Hutchison’s remarks directed against the Premier, and said that whatever faults his chief might have he was a man who never turned his back against a man who had fought with him side by side, and that was what Mr Hutchison had done. With respect to Mr Hutchison’s criticism of the expenditure of last year ho asserted that the expenditure as compared with the revenue left £74,000 in favour of the . Government. Mr Hutchison had stated that there was no money to be got for their consols in the colony, and yet he advocated raising £1,500,000 within the colony without going on the London market. The Government did not want to go on the London market for every- ' thing, and that was why they proposed to get their money for the consols in the colony. Mr Hutchison had stated with a melodramatic air that the best way to get cheap money was to restore confidence in the colony. Mr Beeves asserted that the revolutionary Libera l , party during its tenure of office had seen New Zealand stock at a higher price than it had reached before, and that they had seen the credit of the colony rise higher than at any time whilst the colony was ruled by the business principles of the Conservative party. The recent Government had restored confidence in the colony at Home, and for that reason would be able to go on the London market and get money cheaply. He held that it was a wise plan to raise money for their Treasury Bills locally and from institutions which they would be quite sure would have confidence in the Treasury, and would deal fairly with the Treasury. It might be asked whether the Government could not avoid the issue of those Treasury bills, and that was exactly what the Treasurer desired to do in asking for the payment of the land tax in August instead of December. The reason why Mr Ward had opened the debate was because, like a true Hibernian, he thought he would answer all opposition speeches before they were delivered, and he (Mr Beeves) considered that the Treasurer had done it most effectually. The Liberal party were opposed to borrowing, but there was a great difference between the present proposals and the bad old borrowing of former times which laid unending burdens on the people of the colony instead of assisting the farmers of the country to develope their produce and assist their enterprises, which the proposals of the Government would undoubtedly do. The power in New Zealand which could cheapen money was the State, because the State was the only power that could get money cheaply from the London market. _ Mr Mackenzie (Olutha) and Mr Hogg having spoken, Mr Flatman said he approved of the Government policy. It was not borrowing that had injured the colony in the past; it was the way in which the borrowed money was spent broadcast without any judgment.whatevor. On Mr Larnach’s motion the debate was adjourned. The House rose at 12.45 a.m. The House met at 2.30 p.m. on Thursday. THE FINANCIAL DEBATE. Mr Larnach resumed the debate. He suggested to the Treasurer any easy way of getting revenue, namely, by raising an ad valorem duty on bank cheques and receipts. His proposal was to raise the stamp duty on cheques for every £IOO one penny, for £2OO twopence, £3OO threepence, and so on. He admitted that the proposals of the Government were borrowing, but they would have collateral security for the money borrowed. While he held that the proposals of the Government were sound ones, he could not but admit that the success of them depended greatly on prudent and careful administration, If the proposals were properly administered they could not fail to do the colony great benefit. He believed that the Treasurer could get £1,600,000 at 3 per cent. If he communicated with the Agent-Gen oral he would find that he could probably get all the money he wanted at that figure, or at all events not beyond £3 4s per cent. He considered the speech of a certain hon. gentleman in regard to the Bank of New Zealand was much to be deprecated. The legislation passed was not for ten years, but the partnership between the bank and the colony must go on for ever, and nothing could dissolve it. Messrs McGuire, Harris, B. McKenzie (Buller), R. Thompson, Stevens, Pirangi, and Buddo followed. Mr Hall Jones approved of the financial proposals of the Government with the exception of the consols scheme, which seemed to him to be the old style of borrowing money to be used in the construction of public works. He praised the Budget generally, but felt disappointed that it did not propose to render assistance to those who wanted help most. What, he asked, did it contain to benefit a man who had no land and no wealth 1 Mr Maslin congratulated the Government on presenting such a favorable Budget. Notwithstanding the depressed state of the colony he justified borrowing for acquiring land for the settlement of the people, and said that the only advantage Canterbury gained from the Budget proposals was in regard to land for settlement, which was required. He advocated a revision of the tariff. He thought the railways should be under the control of the Government. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr C. H. Mills, and the House rose at 12.25 a.m.