Parliamentary.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2097, 23 September 1875, Page 2

Parliamentary.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WELLINGTON.

This day. On the House resuming at 7.30— Mr Fitzherbert, referring to the acceptance by the Government of Mr Ashley Brown's amendment — whereby the residue of the land revenue arising within a provincial district shall be applied by the local governing bodies to the construction and maintenance of public works within such district — said that the -Government had abandoned the fundamental portion of their programme, namely that the land revenue should be applied to public works and bringing people on to the land. He thought this change of policy was a great mistake, and that it would prevent the the Government from carrying out a great colonising policy. He thought it was a retrograde movement, and was entirely at variance with what was said in the Financial Statement; for now it appeared the Government intended to devote no portion of the land revenue to immigration, nor was it to be subject to appropriation by the House. The hon. gentleman thought it would injure the credit of the colony when this should be known, and that in fairness to the public creditors this change should, be made as publicly at was the enunciation of policy in the Financial Statement.

The Treasurer replied, saying he had no objection to letting it appear as a part of the financial statement that for this-year the land revenue should not be charged with immigration. After some further, discussion Mr Macandrew's amendment was made to apply to the whole colony in place of Otago only, and a division was "taken as to whether the same should be added to the bill—ayes : 14; noes : 31. The amendment was lost.

Clause 18, as previously amended, was passed. Clause 19.—Mr May opposed the distribution of money as provided by this clause, and said if carried he would oppose the third reading. All "proviso" was struck out, and an amendment mored by Mr Curtis,." No annual payments to exceed Is in the £1 on the annual value to let and Id in the £1 of the value to sell of rateable property within such road district" was agreed to, and the clause passed as amended. . Clause 20.—Mr Curtis moved a similar amendment, viz., that " proviso" be struck out with a view to insert as above' with the addition of "and municipalities."

Mr Gibbs strongly opposed subsidising municipalities to the extent proposed, which he was sura that they did not require, while the outlying districts seriously wanted it-

Mr T. L. Shepherd moved an amendment that the endowment should be 10s in the £ to Municipalities and £1 for £1 to Eoad Boards. He considered that Municipalities are too largely subsidised. The time would come when the Government could not afford it, and outlying districts would suffer accordingly. He did not think the towns wish it, for they know that their prosperity depends on that of the country. If the towns were subflidised to the extent proposed, the result would be simply that they would do away with their rates.

Mr Sheehan agreed with the last speaker, and instanced the town of Auckland, which has valuable reserves, and if it receives £1 for £1 it would certainly be benefited at the expense of the outdistricts. ■•

Mr Reynolds supported Mr Curtis' amendment.

Mr Reid would vote against the clause, because he thought the people in municipalities or road districts should not be endowed out of the consolidated revenue. Mr Wood supported the clause. Mr Harrison moved that 30s to the £ should be given to Eoad Boards and nothing to Municipalities. Mr Steward would vote for the clause. He would much rather see the clause struck out altogether than there should be any difference in endowment between municipalities and road boards Mr Swanson warned the Government that they should fulfil their promises to the people. Mr Shepherd's amendment was negatived on the voices. On a division Mr Harrison's was negatived by a majority of 18—ayes, 24 ; noes, 6. Mr Curtis' amendment carried on voices, and the clause, as amended was passed. Clause 21.—An amendment was moved by Mr Sheehan—3oth April to be explained during the last past financial year of such road district or municipality. The clause as amended was passed. Clause 22 was struck out. Progress was reported with leave to lit again, and the House adjourned at 1.15 a.m.