THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 869, 3 October 1871, Page 2

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Friday, Sept. 22. (From the Wellington Evening Post). REDUCTION OP THE ESTIMATES. The following is the debato on Mr Creighton's resolution : Mr Stafford said, Ministers had challenged criticism by announcing their policy as a retrenchment one, and they must not blame members if they took up the challenge, The Colonial Treasurer occupied a most miserable position. He had brought down his Statement with a flourish of trumpets about retrenchment, which the estimates, sent down immediately after, did not support. For instance, he founu that the total expediture for thej year 1870-1 was ,£1,081,378, while that proposed for the year 1871-2 was £1,163,805, showing an increase of £79,432. The Colonial Treasurer had spoken of last year as the leap-year of the Provinces, but he thought it mightbe termed the leap-year of tiie Colony. He would not refer to the year of the three million loan. That sum was given to Ministers to spend as they liked, and they had done so almost without reference to the House. But with the exception of that year them never was so large an expenditure proposed as that which the present Budget suggested. He would refer members to the totals of the nine first clashes in the estimates. These for 1870-1 anounted to £395,549, while for 1871-2, the amount set down was £380,642, showing an apparent decrease of £11,907. But add to this the sums paid to Resident Magistrates and their clerks, namely, £30,000 there would be a real increase of £16,170. If members would go carefully over the whole estimates, they would be convinced that the Government had no right to take credit for retrenchment. For instance, they should not take credit for not including £7OOO for census, or £BOOO for lighthouses, in this year's estimates. Those items were passed last year, and the expenditure necessarily, would not occur again for some time. It was therefore absurd to claim credit for retrenchment, because they did not propose to include this £15,000 in their estimates. If the statements of the former Ministry were examined, it would be found that they had effected in three years a reduction of £200,000, and yet they did not telegraph all over the Colony that they were a retrenchment and reforming Ministry. The country had been informed by telegraph of retrenchment when the fact is the expenditure never was so large. It would be said, perhaps, that a considerable amount of this expenditure was for interest. This was a mere juggie. The fact that a large charge for interest was necessary should be kept prominently before members, and not carefully stowed away in a corner. Members should know that the interest on the loan was to be paid out of borrowed money. He, in common with many members, had received the first announcement of retrenchment with pleasure, but that feeling had been replaced first by surprise and then by indignation. That a Minister should draw fal-e conclusions from the figures given in his Financial Statement was absolutely unheard of before—Mr Voujel had established the precedent. The estimate of the amount to be raised by stamp duties was, he thoughr, far too much. He considered £45,000 for the San Francisco service wis more thau the Colony could afford, and even £SOOO more than the House had authorised. The present line was too great a luxury. For £25,000 or £26,000, the Colony could obtai nail that would meet its requirements. He thought £50,000 might easily be saved on the estimates, not on the salaries of Government officers. He referred to the Registry of Deeds and the Survey Departments of the Colony, as departments in which large savings might be effected. He believed that the Colonial Treasurer was sincere in his belief in his policy. But the great fault he had was one of too much boasting. He would give the Ministry credit for what they had done, but he could not endorse the boast of Ministers '-.See what fine fellows we are." Mr Harrison corrected Mr Stafford in saying that the salaries of Resident Magistrates were not formerly charged against the consolidated fund. Mr Gisborne said Mr Stafford was great in saving. His deductions respecting the increase of expenditure were most unfair. He refuted the charge of boasting, and said that the policy of the present Government gave peace at a cheaper cost than war could be carried on.

Mr .Reader Wood referred to Mr Voxel's reply to Mr Creighton, which he said was what had been heard already two or three limes, " Oh you want war at once ;" and yet all he had said was that in an expenditure of £195,000 a saviug' of £25,000 might be effected. For this he had been told, " Oh, you want war again." The question was a mere financial one. He did not know how the Colonial Treasurer made up the balance he presented, and he would show how it was so easily adjusted. But with regard to a remark made by the Colonial Treasurer, he wished to say something. He had said that the Government was not answerable for the deficiency of the revenue. But who was, if the Government was not? How could the House prepare estimates of expenditure and revenue ? Would they not have heard a good deal about the success of the schemes had there been been an overplus ? The way the bal-

anco was adjusted was by borrowing. The deficit represented in the statemeat was in reality the excess of expenditure over revenue for the past two or three years. This must be stopped some time, and it had better be done now. The borrowing system had lasted out the last Parliament, but it would not last out the present Parliament. He then referred to the fact that the interest of loans was charged against the loan. Mr Bunny said the motion before the House meant a motion of want of confidence, and it was as well for new members to know this. As regarded turning the G-overnmeut out, the same thing had been said over and over again. When the policy of the present Government was brought down, it was condemned as impracticable; but the House endorsed it, Then the cry was, " Oh you won't get the money," but it had been obtained at a moderate rate, and now comes the cry —"the expenditure is too lavish." He dwelt on the danger to the credit of the Colony, which a constant change of G-overnments caused, and he hoped members would consider well the purport of the present Ministry. Katene said he objected to the proposed motion because it would reduce the salaries of the native assessors. He objected to the tactics of the opposition. They sought to turn out the Ministry in order to obtain the emoluments of office, and if the present Government were turned out, they would again seek to eject their successors, in order to regain the emoluments of office. This was not what should be in the General Assembly. He believed in the present Government, because he agreed with their treatment of the Maori question. Mr M'Gillivray made a few remarks on the question of immigration. Mr Parata said the question was not one of finance, but of com. The fowls had been fed and had become tame, and now the corn was to be withheld. Instead of reducing the money to the Maoris, withdraw it altogether. If trouble comes, don't pay Maoris for keeping peace. He did not wish it to be thought that they were supporting altogether the present Gevernment. All Governments seemed to be alike. It is not fair to aay Maoris were the cause of disagreement. Let all their land be given back, and take all money from them.

Mr Gillies said he could easily understand how a boastful Government required a boastful advocate like Mr Bunny. The intention of the motion was not to turn out the present Ministry, but it might have the effect if the Government refused to do as they were asked, and go in for true, instead of fictitious retrenchment. He then referred to the statement in law and justice, and he said that the figures in the statement, made the saving on this item to be £17,000 more than it really was. A careful reference to the estimates by the members themselves would make this plain. He had listened to the debate, and not one word had been said about reducing the assessors' salaries, and he was at a loss to know how the Maori members had got that idea into their heads unless it had been carefully put there by the Government. With regard to the statement he could not characterise it other than had been done, namely, as a thimble-rigging finance. It did not contain one single statement that was plain and above board, that an accountant could take and make out easily. [At this point, the usual hour for adjournment for dinner having arrived, the House adjourned.] Mr Gillies, on resuming, explained that the error he referred to in the estimates was an error in the total given on page 20. This error was not carried into the summary, nor did it affect in actual result the table in the Financial Statement, but he referred to it to show the misleading character of the estimates, and as a reason for their reconsideration by the Government. He further explained that the table circulated and previously referred to by him was taken principally from the Colonial Treasurer's tables, aud that any apparent discrepancy would be explained by reference to the Colonial Treasurer's table F. He also explained that in alluding to the native members being misled, he did not

allude to the Native Interpreter, who discharged his duties so well, but to other influences which misled them. He conteoded that the motion did not fix an arbitrary limit of £50,000, but was only a suggestion to the Government to strengthen their hands in carrying out their retrenchment policy. Hon. members would find that they could do very little good by going into details in committee like dogs snarling over a bone. His experience showed him that a private member endeavouring to cut down au item in committee would simply be set upon, or rather jumped upon. He strongly deprecated the position taken up by the Government in opposing this motion, and making it a party vote, thus forcing many members, both North and South, into voting against their convictions, in order to support a Government who professes a sham retrenchment. They might, and no doubt would, have a large majority by aid of " the souls and lips that are bought and sold," but the House and the country would not long stand that sort of thing, The whip might do for a time, but the bullocks ere long would rebel against the yoke. Mr Steward rose with diffidence to speak on this question. He did not think the Ministry were right in makiug the motion before the House a

party question. No one would denythat means of retrenchment had been overlooked. He declined to *leept the question aB one of want wFpntidence. Some items of. might bn reduced. The geological expenditure was, he thought, more than the country was in a position to afford. Another item was £I,OOO fir the New Zealand University. The money was, in the face of the exist, ence of the Otago University, an unnecessary expenditure, from which no benefit was derived. The next item which was capable of reduction was that for Resident Magistrates. In his remarks he spoke for no party, and he believed the Government had gone out of tke way to find a challenge. The House would notice that an excess of £7,000 was made out on the estimates. It would also be remembered that the estimates brought down last year had. been found greatly in excess of the revenue, and he could not think that the present year would be passed without the deficit upon the estimates being found to be from .£60,000 to £IOO,OOO.

The Hon. J. Hall said he certainly had not helped to put the Ministry in office, neither had he helped to keep them there. He would most decidedly vote against the motion, because he thought it was a mistake. The mover had not put his hand on one particular item and shewed that it was too much. Besides, he believed that it was competent tor any one to reduce them if thev wished to do so.

Mr Itolleston took the first opportunity of stating to which side he would give his adhesion. The Middle Island had liberally contributed its quota towards the colonial expenditure, and had last session cheerfully voted for large expenditure for five years, for the preservation of peace in the North Island. He would .always set his face against expenditure which the Colony could not afford. The Governor's speech had promised that revenue and expenditure should be equalised, but the budget did not show that such was being done. He would strive earnestly in the direction of retrenchment, and he hoped members would remember that the burdens of, the Colony were as heavy as could be borne, and that the direction of the Budget was to increase this. Mr Bathgate said he should support any members who would go in for retrenchment, which the Government had promised, but which the estimates did not show. He thought £SOO should be the maximum for the salaries of subordinate oilicers, and "that a yearly expenditure of £200,000 a year upon defenee was more than the colony could aiford. We were going on living upon borrowed money, and a day of reckoning must come when interest and current expenditure could not be met, and when we, in common parlance, throw up the sponge. Some saving might be effected by the consolidation of some offices, but he did not look upon the abolition of provincialism as likely to produce economy. He then referred to the unsatisfactory reduction of the capitation allowance, which would result in the Proviuces being brought in a debtor to the Government to the sum of £22,000, to pay which the land fund would bo taken. Otago would rebel against one penny of its Lmd fund, which belonged to it for local works, being alienate!. He hoped the Government would not accept the motion as one of want of confidence.

Mr Haughton made a apeech against the resolution, which, however, did not seein to carry much weight with it. Mr Oalders spoke on both sides of the question, and left his hearers in doubt as to what he meant.

Mr J. E Brown opposed the resolution, and challenged the figures used by Messrs G-illies and Creighton, but in doing so he made rather a poor exhibition of himself, l>eing checked continually in stating inaccuracies. Mr Reynolds said bo had been placed in a difficulty. He was not, on the Motion of Mr Creighton, going to support what was in realit> a vote of want of confidence. Mr Brandon regretted the form the motion had been brought in, because he would be compelled to vote against it. He thought the time to consider the question of the reduction of the expenditure was when the House was in committee on the estimates.

Mr Shepherd supported the motion. Mr Williamson spoke at length against the resolution, and dealt out personalities liberally to those who were on the opposite silo of the House to him.

Mr Collins, after a few words of rebuke to Mr Williamson, said he was prepared to support the resolution because he saw that the House must tiike violent measures if the idea shadowed forth in the Governor's speech was to be carried out, and the expenditure and the revenue were to be equalised. Ministers might have bad a faint intention of carrying out that idea when they embodied it in the speech, but they had evidently forgotten it when preparing the estimates. The statement said that the Colony commenced this year with a surplus of over £70,000. If such was the ease why was not the overdraft of £OO,OOO paid. He had been taunted by the Premier for having been onco for him, and now being against him. The reason was plain. The Premier took office under certain principles, which were abandoned immediately. When that waa flone, he had openly told Mr Fox that he could no longer support him. The first act almost that the Premier had douo was to allow Provincial borrowing.

Mr Eyes, though strongly in favour ■ofretrenchment, thought the motion and would vote against Mr Beeves protested against the false issue that had been raised by the motion. It was not a question as to whether hou. members were in favor •of retrenchment or not: it was a question of want of confidence. He was •opposed to the suggested reduction in the defence expenditure, and in the San Francisco Mail Service. In the latter instance, in the face of the existing contract, the reduction wbald be ■equivalent to repudiation. Mr Wakefield pointed out that no Minister had said that they would take an adverse vote -on the subject as a vote of want of confidence, and he did not intend to take this statement on the authority of the whips. As to the breakage of the San Francisco contract he saw an advertisement in the papers which showed that the contractors were going to break it. He would have sweeping alterations made in the Dative policy with the view of curtailing expenditure.

Mr E. Richardson opposed the motion.

Mr Macandrew would assist in effecting reductions in committee. He would then, most likely, vote for all that had been suggested that night, but he would not vote for turning out the Ministry.

Mr Fox scarcely knew what arguments to "urge to thohon. members, for it was outside the House that arguments are used to sway young members. The main question was as to whether it was right or wrong to accept the motion asone of confidence. This he could fully ■establish by reference to authorities, "but for the ■late hour of ihe evening. He referred to the statement made by Mr Stafford regarding the salaries of magistrates, and endeavoTed to show that statement was incorrect, hut he ■was corrected very pointedly and fully *by Mr Stafford. He then stated that i;he native .policy had been successful. He would only say that the "Governtreat this motion as one •of want of confidence.

On the Speaker putting the question "" that the words proposed stand part of the question," a division was called, •with following results:; —Ayes. 42 •Noes, 15. Ayes—Haugh ton, Eyes, Bunny, Hall, iMacandrew, Studholme, Webster, Togel, MvLean, Gisborne, Parker, M'Leod, Katene, Pearce, Parata, Andrew, Ormond, Clark, Peacock, Tribe, Kelly, Karaitiana, E. Eichardson, J. E. Brown, Eeeves, Kelly, Harrison, Karsdake, 'Carrrngton, Parker, Taiaroa, Pox, Hunter, Swanson, M'Gillivray, Hen"derson, Williamson, Farnall, O'Neill, M'Leau, M'Pherson, Johnston - Noes—Eolleston, Gillies, Stafford, Bathgate, Reid, Wood, Cantrell, R. Eichardson, In«los, Bradshaw, Wake'field, J. C. Browue, Munro, Ereighton, 'Collins. The House then went into Committee to consider the estimates.