PUBLIC REVENUES BILL.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 883, 4 November 1871, Page 2

PUBLIC REVENUES BILL.

In moving the second reading of the above bill, Mr Vogel said that in asking for an increase of power with regard to deficiency bills, the Government was simply asking the House to aid them in tiding over temporary difficulties until the re venue had recovered its elasticity, as it surely would do under the proposed policy. If they were not so aided the Government would have to propose increased permanent taxation. Mr Stafford said that Mr Vogel's explanation amounted to a declaration that the Government intended to spend more than the revenue. If the revenue was not sufficient to cover the proposed expenditure, the obvious proper course was not to spend so much, and

bo render the revenue sufficient. To go on borrowing to Bupply a deficiency was a pernicious and ruinous course. The Government, however, had by one means or another secured a large majority, and his only surprise was that they didnotask forhalfamillioninstead of a paltry £100,000; their majority would vote the one as readily as the other. In a few years those who were not fortunate enough to be able to leave the country would realise what the present Government policy meant. Mr Eeid said the policy of the Government was to spend money, careless as to whether it was profitably spent or not. Thus they got a majority, and they would lose it if they attempted to keep the expenditure within the revenue. Mr Thomson thought that the asking of this power wa° an acknowledgment by the Treasurer that be had not confidence in his own Estimates. The 'power to issue deficiency bills was originally intended to meet cases of emergency, not to be habitually used to aid the revenue. Mr Gisborne said that if the present Government werespending money, it was on public works, and not on war. Mr M'Leod said that now the Government were entering on large undertakings they were justified in asking for larger powers. Mr Parata opposed any more borrowing until he saw some provision for repaying what had been already borrowed. Mr Calder said that deficiency bills were becoming a regular institution, sind the present proposal amounted to a lump vote of £IOO,OOO for the Ministry to spend as they liked. If Ministers adopted a fair and honest policy they would not long retain their seats. Their policy lacked all provision for the settlement of the .people, which alone could render public works successful. The Government was not inclined to deal with the ■settlement question, and only thought •of how it could spend money. Mr (D.?) M'Lean defended the -Government, denying that a single instance of improvidence or reckless •expenditure on their part could be pointed to. The Government, in conjunction with the Superintendents, without whom they could not act, had done all that was possible for immigration.

Mr Macandrew expressed his belief that the Government policy would prove highly successful, and referred to Otago to show what had been done to encourage immigration. Mr Fitzherbert supported the extension of the powers of the Government in the matter of deficiency bills, as he bad always doubted whether the margin of £60,000 was sufficient. Mr White opposed and Mr J. C. Brown supported the bill. Mr Vogel replied briefly, and the second reading of the Bill was then ■carried on the voices.