PARLIAMENTARY.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3933, 6 August 1881, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

(Pee Peess Association.)

Wellington, Yesterday.

Ou the motion to go into Committee of Supply, Mr Saunders said he rose to speak od the estimates as a disappointed and angry man, fcr he, indeed, expected something very different to the present estimates. He looked on them as a representative of a decidedly over-taxed country, and not as a supporter or attacker of Government. All Governments seemed much the same. None of them would take a proper stand in this matter. He condemned the abandonment of the 10 per cent, reduction as a retrograde movement, especially in regard to the higher salaries, which it was now proposed to restore. In the very first page, that of legislative departments, £1756 could be taken off with positive improvement to the service ; £1191 might also be saved on gardener and labourers on Government domains. In many other departments he saw his way to large reductions, especially in the Department of Justice, by which £850 might be saved in striking out the two first salaries, and putting the department under the Solicitor General. These were only samples of the possible savings if only Government took a proper stand against the Civil Service. He strongly condemned the prevalent idea of living on borrowed money, and insisted on the necessity of Convincing people that this was a delusion leading to ruin. Instead of reducing the Property Tax it should be doubled, an income tax be imposed, and the tea and sugar duties re-imposed rather than we should continue as was proposed to live on borrowed money. He would like to see local bodies left to raise money in their own localities for local works, so that each might feel it was spending its own money.

Mr Thompson to a great extent agreed with Mr Saunders as to doubling the Property Tax, but he did not think any officers' salary under £200 should hare been reduced. Ho strongly condemned the manner in which the Government financial proposals had been brought down, and the delay in regard to them. He urged that a return, showing how all the savings boasted of by Government had been effected, should be furnished. He was rather sceptical about these savings.. .

Sir George Grey said he had a scheme to suggest which he hoped the Government would not consider a wanTof confi dence motion. He had no such intention in making it, but he felt that in that House, and under the present circumstances, it was quite impossible to effect any reduction in expenditure. He thought it would be well to remit the esiimates to a select committee of twelve members, seven from the Government side and five from the Opposition. Such a committee might, he believed, effect great reform in the Civil Service. He hoped that a select committee would be appointed to examine the Estimates, and to report upon what consolidations of departments, changes, or reductions can be made in order to reduce it to the lowest possible amount consistent with due efficiency, such committee to consist of Major Atkinson, Messrs Moss, Ballance, Hall, Hutchinson, Johnston, Macandrew, McLean, Montgomery, Saunders, Swanson, Wood, and the mover, to report in a week.

The Hon J. Hall said if Sir George Grey had b.een really so sincere in bringing down so important and almost revolutionary a proposal, he should have given notice, so that members might have had time to consider the matter. To refuse to consider the estimates, prepared after a month of consideration, and to remit to a committee to do in a week what it was assumed the Government had failed to do in a year, was really what Sir George Grey proposed. It reminded him of Sir George Grey's boast on a previous occasion, that he could, in half an hour, re-cast the estimates so as to reduce them £100,000, yet when Sir George was in office for two years the estimates had grown instead of being reduced. Sir George Grey had shown he was no safe guide in finance, and the House should not follow him. Any schoolboy could reduce the estimates by writing £5 for £10, but none without long and special information could avoid injustice or loss of efficiency in making reductions. The Government had been seeking to obtain this information, and were now considering the advisability of appointing a Commission to inquire into the whole financial position, and their services might, perhaps, do some good; but this was a very different thing to a committee to revise the details of the estimates. The most practical course was for the House to apply itself to the estimates. Great savings had been made, but Government knew they were not perfect; but they hoped to make them better. He hoped the House would not adopt Sir George Grey's proposal. Mr Swanson did not think the proposed committee could possibly do what was wanted in time. He thought Government should take the estimates back and reduce them.

Mr Shrimski regretted that Messrs Seed and Batkin's report was not before the House. He thought the Committee might do very good work, and save the Government much unpleasant responsibility.

Mr Ballance hoped Sir George Grey would withdraw his proposal. If Government persisted in treating it as a party question, he did not. He thought the committee could do a great deal of useful work. Large reductions could be made by the amalgamating of offices, and reductions in large salaries.

Mr Weston, at considerable length, pointed out the impossibility of the proposed committe effecting any good. He also protested strongly against Mr Saunders proposal to reduce the salaries very largely, contending that those of the higher ofljcers were not at all too large in consideration of the position they occupied.

Mr Sheekan replied to and ridiculed a number of statements made by Mr Westoa. He thought the Civil Servants were paid very well out of the country. The House was entitled to have the report of the Civil Service Conjmissiouerb

before it. If Sir George Grey's motion was a party one he would vote for it, but if it was not a party one it had better be withdrawn.