HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3139, 20 July 1881, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Tuesday. The House met at 2.30 p.m. NOTICES OE MOTION. Mr Reeves gave notice of a motion affirming the desirability of Resident Magistrates and Wardens on the goldflelds being removed every three years. Mr Murray gave' notice to move that in view of the plentiful supply of money in the market, and the cheap rates of interest, it is desirable that the railway works should be pushed on with all possible speed. Mr Reeves gave notice of a resolution in favor of an import duty on wool. Mr Jones gave notice to ask if the Government intend to give effect to the New Zealand code recently prepared by tho Judicature Commission. Mr Jones also gave notice to move that the Government take steps to obtain, by cable or otherwise, to lay before the House, a copy of Sir Julius Vogel's returned letters. QUESTIONS. Replying to questions, it was stated that two lighthouse-keepers were located at Napier, one being employed only casually —the latter has been paid at a rate considered sufficient to cover the usual allowance made for' house rent; the Government had not yet considered the report of the Inspector of Prisons relative to the proposed abolition of prison schools, alterations in the dietary scale, and the punishment of prisoners without waiting for the Visiting Justices, and they could not say as yet what was likely to be done about the same ; the population of the southern ports on the West Coast of the Middle Island was too small to warrant a. subsidy being paid for a steam service—the Government steamer visited those ports once a quarter, and if her engagements would permit, those visits would be more frequent; the Government had received the engineer's report upon the survey of the track between the I/yell and Mohikinui townships, but the Government could make no promise that the work would be provided for. NEW BILLS The following bills were introduced and read a first time: —Maori Committee Empowering Bill (Tomoana) ; Land Act 1877 Amendment Bill ; East Coast Land District Bill (Rolleston) ; Harbors Act 1878 Amendment Bill (Wright). REPEAL OF ABOLITION OE PROVINCES ACT. Mr Sheehan, before moving for leave to introduce a bill to repeal the Abolition of Provinces Act, asked the Government to state what course they proposed to pursue in regard to the bill. All manner of rumors had been in circulation about tho lobbies, and he desired them to state what they proposed doing. Mr Hall said the motion was of such a nature that the Government felt called upon to accept it in the light of a vote of no-confidence, and to ask that as little business as possible be done until it was disposed of. He would not object to the introduction of the bill or to its first reading, but on the motion for fixing the date for the second reading he would move that it be read that day six months, and would ask the House to proceed with the debate that evening. Mr Sheehan said that he had the convenience of others to consult, and if they were opposed to the course proposed he would not be prepared to adopt it. Personally he did not object. Mr Macandrew demurred to the Government accepting the introduction of the bill as a vote of want of confidence. The present Government were 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 the Government were simjuy 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 Mr Sheehan. 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 opinions of those with whom he usually acted. Mr Montgomery denied that the motion was one of a party character, and professed his intention of voting against it. Such being the case the Government had no right to deal with it as a party question. Mr Mos3 reminded the Government that they had invited the House to assist in devising a good scheme for local government, and blamed them for making Mr Sheehan's bill a party question, when it was simply in response to that invitation. Mr Sheehan said he 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 he would re-intro-duce the bill now under discussion so as to allow of such a debate. LICENSING BILL. The Licensing Bill was reported, and on the motion for its third reading a division took place : —Ayes, 46 ; noes, 26. The bill was read a third time and passed. PUBLIC WORKS BILL. On the motion of Mr Hall the Public Works Bill was read a second time. CROWN AND NATIVE LANDS RATING BILL. Mr Sutton resumed the debate on the second reading of the Crown and Native Lands Rating Bill. He thought the public service would never be made really efficient or economical until the present system of keeping public accounts was altered. There was too much departmentalism, too much consideration for departmental interests to the neglect of the interests of the colony and the service as a whole. Ho thought the 10 per cent, reduction had been too rigidly applied, although he admitted the earnestness with which the Government had successfully devoted themselves to a most unpopular task. Instead of reducing the property tax he would like to have seen the exemptions repealed and every man contribute his share, whether large or small, but amounts under £1 not to be collected. If a remission of taxation was possible, he would rather see it in some other direction, by the remission of direct taxation. With the proposals to relieve capital while allowing local bodies increased rating powers he did not agree. He approved of the proposal to rate native and Crown lands, but he objected to the values fixed. All land by whomsoever owned should be made equally liable for local works. He did not see how the proposed plan would work in regard to native land which was never likely to be sold. Would the Government keep on paying for those lands ? The natives should be made to pay rates for their lands like other people. He admitted that, on the whole, the proposals of tho Government would placo the local bodies in a position to discharge their functions, but they should be made as independent as possible of Government interference. One omission apparent in the bill was that no provision was made for the maintenance of main roads. With most of the proposals of the Financial Statement he agreed, especially as to the issue of debentures in the colony. He had not beard from either side any proposals to really improve the present system of local self-government, but before the session closed he hoped some really good measures would be proposed, which while imposing on localities the duty of raising most of the funds, would enable them to expend those funds to the best advantage, and carry out their important functions in a manner to benefit the country. Mr Sutton was interrupted by tho 5.30 adjournment. The Houre resumed at 7.30. Mr Sutton continued his speech. He reviewed the whole of the financial and special proposals of the Government, expressing general approval of them, with the exception of the Public Works Board and the reduction of the property tax, to both of which he was opposed. When in committee on the bill now before tho House he would suggest some amendments.

Mr Saunders expressed great disappointment at the speech of Major Atkinson when moving the second reading of the bill. The Government proposed nothing, and evidently intended to do nothing. The effect of the bill now under consideration as to rating Crown lands would be to take money from districts where it would be profitably spentandspend itinthe midst of awilderness. He protested against that proposal as mischievous in tho extreme. The bill was a proposal to continue the delusion that money could be obtained by jugglery, instead of by taxes. The bill was, in fact, utterly devoid of principle. As to rating native lands, he agreed that such land should be rated, but he objected altogether to the proposals of the bill as being unjust to the natives, who would have no voice in spending the money. What was proposed really amounted to confiscation. No doubt, after 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 so the thing would drop and the debt never be enforced. Regarding local government bo regretted the abolition of provincialism without something being substituted in its place, but it was impossible now to restore the provinces as they had been, and he did not consider Sir George Grey's proposals an improvement. Provincial executire bodies, however, might profitably be created, but they should not have legislative powers. Ho would divide each island into four provinces ■ each with a Superintendent and six Councillors, elected by single votes of the electors. He would like the electors to be men and women voting as such, not as property holders. He would also have three Councillors elected by the Road Boards. The County Councils should be abolished and the Road Boards increased in number. He would stop all the present separate rates by local bodies, and let that House double tho present property-tax, and leave two-thirds of the amount to be spent in fcha road district in which it was raised. This would tend to economy, and obviate all scrambling for money. He would also impose a tax on all improved land which was capable *_ improvement, and so prevent any good land from being held for the purposes of speculation. This revenue he would leave in the hands of the Provincial Executives for works beyond the jurisdiction of the Road Boards. This was a rough outline of a scheme which he thought would suit the requirements of the colony. Of course he could not be expected then to enter into details. Mr Ormond regretted they were called on to discuss the large questions that were raised by the present debate without having all the Government bills before them, and before the Public Works Statement was made. The question of railway reform was largely mixed up with the question of local government, and railway reform the people would have. He had carefully considered the proposals of the Government in the spirit of one desirous to give Ministers his support, but he was unable to see anything satisfactory in those proposals—proposals which would stereotype and strengthen the present most unsatisfactory condition of affairs. Under those circumstances he felt it is duty to bring matters to an issue by moving as an amendment on the Government bill that the whole of the Government proposals in respect to local government and finance were unsatisfactory. He did this as a private member, but with the assent of several members who like himself had supported and wished to support the Government, but could not support these proposals. He felt less responsibility in the course he was taking, as the Parliament being moribund the carrying of such a motion as his would not affect the position of the Ministry until they had appealed to the people. Still, it was with regret he felt it his duty to oppose his former friends and colleagues. He complained greatly of the indecision of the Government in dealing with their measures, and the delay in bringing down their bills. He would not now repeat what he had said on previous occasions about local government, but would supplement it by saying that he thought Road Boards useful and County Councils useless bodies, and that the two should not be continued. The Road 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 out 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 entrusted with large rating powers. He denied that the House was really competent to undertake the redress of local grievances. Instead of the land administration being centralised by the abolition of the Waste Lands Boards, he held that the administration of tho Crown lands was one of the first functions which should devolve upon the local bodies. Mr Ormond then briefly reviewed the proposals of the bill before the House, remarking that it required great attention before it could safely be passed. As to the Road Construction Bill, he strongly condemned it, especially the proposed Board. Mr Johnston said that the reasons given by Mr Ormond 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 to be working could only be the re-establishment of provincialism. Mr Johnston defended the G-overnment proposals generally, and replied to several of Mr Ormond's criticisms. The proposed Board to adrc nee money was nothing new in principle. It was only the adoption of a plan working most satisfactorily in England. They could easily limit the sum to be advanced to any one body in any year. Ho believed the Government proposals were satisfactory to the country if not to Mr Ormond. They would promote colonisation. Mr Whitaker said that Mr Ormond's speech on the property tax last session was the most selfish ever delivered in the House. Mr Ormond's only desiro was to escape taxation on property, and any idea of unison between Sir George Grey and Mr Ormond was ridiculous. He felt a sense of relief at Mr Ormond having at last declaimed his true colors as an opponent of the Government - lie had evidently been so in secret from the commencement of the session. He (Mr Whitaker) contended that the fact that nearly all the counties in the colony had brought the Act fully into force was a strong argument to show r how generally acceptable that form of government was. Mr Ormond's proposals would revive all the worst features of provincialism. The real question at issue was between provincialism and centralism. He would strongly oppose any return to the former. If the question of local finance was satisfactorily adjusted the people would be quite satisfied with their existing institutions. Colonel Trimble strong opposed the amendment, supported the Government proposals, and critised Sir George Grey's Local Government Bill. Mr M'Lean reproached Mr Ormond for bringing down a motion of that kind without consulting his old friends or intimating his intention to them. The Opposition seemed, however, to have been more in his confidence. As to the Government proposals not being satisfactory, he (Mr M'Lean) did not think any person could bring down proposals which would bo generally satisfactory on tho whole. He approved the Government proposals, and was certain that had the provinces existed when the late financial panic took place the colony would have had to stop payment. All that Mr Ormond did was to find faultApparently he had nothing to propose as an alternative to the scheme he attacked. If the Government had, as he believed they had, succeeded in settling tho licensing question, that was no slight achievement for any Government to accomplish in a single session. He contended that ample opportunities for redress of grievances existed in the House, and that it would be much better

for tho Government to consult the County Councils than to be led by the Waste Lands Boards in the administration of the lands of the colony. The Government proposal in this respect was towards decentralisation, not centralisation. Ho thought the final settlement of the local government question should be left to the country. Mr Fulton moved the adjournment of tho debate, which was agreed to, and the House rose afc 12.35.