PARLIAMENTARY.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3918, 20 July 1881, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

(Pee Press Association.)

Wellington, Tuesday. y- sir sheehan's bill. Before moving for leave to introduce a bill to repeal the Abolition of Provinces Act, 1875, Mr Sheeiiau asked Government to state what course it proposed to pursue in regard to the bill. All mauuer of rumours had been in circulation about the lobbies, and he desired them to state what they proposed doing. The Hon. J. Hall said the motion was of such a nature (hat Government felt called upon to accept it in the light of a vote of no confidence, aud to ask that as little business as possible bo done until it was disposed of.' lie would not object to the introduction of the bill of to us first reading, but on the motion for fixing a date for Lhe second reading he would more it be that d*y six months, and would ask them to pruceed with the debate that evening. Mr ijheelian said that he had the convenience of oUr-ivs to consult, aud if they were opposed to the course pruposed he would not be prepared to adopt it. Personally he did not object. Mr Macandrew demurred to Government accepting it as v rote of want of confidence. The Government was not responsible for Abolition having been carried. Mr Brown moved that the introduction of the Bill be postponed till that day six months. Mr Gisborne said Government was simply attempting to draw a red herring across the scent and raise a false issue. The Bill should not be taken out of the ordinary course. Mr Hall said that the arrangement he proposed had been assented to by the mover. - •.. Mr Sheehan said that he had been willing to assent to the arrangement on his own behalf, but he had to be guided by the opinion of those with whom he usually acted. Mr Montgomery denied that the motion was one of a party character, and professed his iutentiou of voting against it. Such being the case, the Government had no right to deal with it as a party question. Mr Moss reminded Government that it has invited them to assist in devising a good scheme for Local Government, and blamed them for making this a party question, when they had simply responded to that iimtalion.

Mr Sheehan said lie would allow his motion for leave to introduce the bill to lapse, but if an exhaustive debate on Sir George Grey's Local Government Bill was not allowed to take place, be would reintroduce the bill under discussion to allow of such a debate. LIOENSING BILL. The Licensing Bill was reported, and on the motion for the third reading a discus sion r took place—ayes, 46 ; noes, 26. The bill was read a third time, and passed. On the motion of the Hon. J. Hall, the Public Works Bill was read a second time. Mr Sutton resumed the debate on the second reading of the Crown and Native Lands liating Bill, speaking for nearly an hour on the general question of local Government, and the general proposals set out in the Government policy. The House adjourned at 5 30. The debate on the Crown and Native Lands Bating Bill was continued. Mr Sutton reviewed the whole of the financial and special proposals of Government, expressing general approval with the exception of the public works board, and reduction of Property Tax, to both of which he was opposed. In Committeeon the present bill he wou'd suggest amendmen s Mr Saunders expressed disappointment at the speech of Major Atkinson, in moving the second reading of the bill. Government proposed nothing, and evidently intended to do nothing. To effect the bill under consideration as to rating Crown lands would be to take money from districts where it would profitably be spent, and spend it in the midst of a 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 such lands should be rated, but objected altogether to the proposals in the bill as unjust to the natives, who would have no voice in spending the money. What was proposed really amountad to confiscation. No doubt, afler 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 as the thing would drop, the debt would never be enforced. Regarding local government, he regretted abolition without our having got anything in the place of Provincialism, but it was impossible now to restore the provinces as they had been, and he did not consider Sir George Grey's proposal an improvement on provincial executive bodies, however profitably they might be created, that they should have no legislative powers. He would divide each Island into four provinces, each with a superintendent and six councillors, elected by single votes of electors. He would like the electors to be men and women, voting as such, not property holders. He would also have three councillors elected by the Road Boards. The County Councils should be abolished, and Uoad Boards increased in number. He would stop all the present separate votes to local bodies, and let the House double the present Property Tax, and leave two-thirds of the amount raised in the road districts in which it was raised. Thi3 would tend to economy, and obviate all scrambling for money. He would also impose a tsix on all unimproved land which was capable of improvement, and so prevent any good land from being held for the purpose of speculation. This revenue he would leave in the hands of the provincial executives for works beyond the jurisdiction of Road Boards. This was a rough outline of a scheme he thought would suit the requirements of the colony. Of course it could not be expected tbon to enter into details. Mr Ormond regretted they were called on to discuss large questions raised by the debate without having all the Government bills before tkera, and beiove tl\e Public Works Statement was made. The question of railway reform was largely mixed up with, the question of Local go verument, and with railway reform people would have to be careful. He had considered the proposals ol Government in the spirit of one desirous to give Minis ters his support, but he was unable to see anything satisfactory in those proposals, but they would stereotype and strengthen the present m )st unsatisfactory condition of affairs. Under these circumstances he felt it his duty to bring matters to au issue by moving an amendment on the Government bill, " That tlie whole of the Government proposals in respect to local government and nuance were unsatisfactory." . He did this as a private member, but with the assent of several members who, like himself, had wished to support Government, but could not support these proposals. He felt less responsibility in this course, ?is Parliament being moribund, the carrying of such a motion as his would not affect the position of th.o Ministry uniil they appealed to the people. Still, it was wit'i great regret he felt it his duty to oppose his former friends and collotigues. H ■ complained greatly of tho indecision of Government in dealing with measures, and delay in bringing down their bills. He would not now repeat what had been said onpreviousoceasiou about localgovernment but would supplement it by saying he thought road boards useful, and county councils useless bodies; and that the two should not be continued. The board system under a. proper financial system, might develop 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 intrusted with large rating powers. He denied that this House was really competent to undertake the redress of local grievances. Instead of the land administration being centralised by the abolition of Waste Lands Boards, he held that the administration of Crown lands was one of the first functions which should devolve upon local bodies. He briefly reviewed the proposals of the bill immediately before them, saying it required great attention before they could safely be passed. As to the Roads Con? struction Bill, he strongly condemned it; especially the proposed Board. The amendment having been put, Mr Johnston 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 others seemed working could oily be the re-establishment of Provincialism.