THE QUEEN'S WHARF SALE BILL.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 3, 1 July 1881, Page 2

THE QUEEN'S WHARF SALE BILL.

! DEBATE IN THE LOWER HQUSE. In the Lower Houso yesterday, on the question for going into committee on tho Wpllinprton Qnecn's Wharf Salo Bill introduced by Mr. Levin, Mr. T)e Latjtour spoke strongly against tho bill as it stood, stating that measures of this character tended to add largely to tho debt of tho colony. On a first sight tho bill seemed to be to give effect to a very simple operation— viz., to convoy the wharf from one body to another ; but | underlying it thcro was also this— that j£64,000 was to bo obt Lined for the city of Wellington for purposes not originally intended when tho money was borrowed in tho first instance— for he promoted th*t tho money for the construction of tho wharf was in the first instance raised by loan for specific hirbour purposes. Tho money to be obtained under tho sale would be devotod to purposes upon which there was no information. Ho saw nothing in tho bill to prevent the Corporation squandering the money upon works or in any other way. 'J he Hoose .ought firßt to see that Wellington was financially sound enough to take tho burden npon ifc, and that the money was to be expended in a beneficial manner -that ifc should not be expended npon any purposes tho Corporation might think fit. He thought the most legitimate mode oc dcalinj? with the matter in the interest of tho city and colony, would bo to let the Harbour Board take over tho wharf relieving the Corporation of all burdens afc present existing by virtue of tho construction of tho wharf. The hon. gentleman in charge of tho bill had not, in moving the second reading, given tho House information a3 to the present debt of Wellington, the powers of tho Board, &c. Hitherto tho Government had always taken the .• responsibility of advising tho House in regard to bills of this nature, but in the present instance they had nob done co. The Pbbmiee paid the fact that the Government made no statement in regard to this Billindicatod that they agreed to it. Mr. Levin thought Mr. Do Lautour under a misapprehension as to tho natnro of tho Bi'l. A bargain hai been struck between the two bodies, and it was no part of his duty to say how tho money paid by tho Board should be spent. The .£39,000 proposed to be paid for tho wharf an<l sheds did not in any way represent their full value. The Bill was then committed. In clause 2, Which provided for tho salo aud purchase of the wharf, and sdso provided how tha JC39.000 was to bo spent. -Mr. De Lautodb movoi an amendment to tho effect that the money paid to the Corporation should be ÜBod in the reduction of taa municicpal debt, aud for no other purpose. Mr. Hutchison expl»ined that the debt of the Corporation would nofc bo increased one penny by tho transaction, as the Harbour Board would take ovor the debt upon tho wharf. If Hr. De I autour's amendment was carried, of course tho whole matter would terminate. Tho salo was to tako place on the distinct understanding that ths Corporation should not bo fettered in ita disp osal of the Mr. STEVBks wished to know if tho property was included in tho securities under the City of Wellington Loan Consolidation Act. Mr. Hutchison said it was included in the consolidated loin, but tho Corporation would still remain s?curity for thi*. Mr. Si evens asked if the security to tbo ~ bondholders would be varied in any way,"** tho proposal was to hand over what wfra part of the property secured to thorn. Mr. Montgomery thought tho' clause should be postponed till tho positions;; clearly ascertained. Mr. Levin understood that nicipal finances were liable £»r the dobta withe bondholders lv framing tho bill tho object wa3 to protect- &io bondholders, and the lost fow linos m the clause under discussion would have that effect 1 . Mr. Pitt wonld like to sco fio wholo -money applied to the reduction nf tho debt upon the city cf Wellington. Ho thought that ultimately these local loan 3 would fa'l n;)on*the colony. , . MrT Wsston was of the same opinion. The Premier denied that the bondholders had a claim upon the colony. With regard to the bill, it had been under the notice of the Crown Laud Officer, and that offioer, in his rf-port, had not drawn attention to the fact that th 9 wharf wa9 Beourity for tho bondholders. Ho (tho Premier) had failed to find anything in the Act constituting the wharf special security for the money borrowed ; it was the general rayenue of the Corporation that was tho security. It might, therefore, as well bo asserted that the Corporation could noiJSparfc with any of ita reserves or anything else. If the hon. member in charge of the bill would put in sv proviso in the third clau«e to the effect that the Corporation should. " subject to any security existing over tho said wharf and store," grant to the Board, Ac, that would meet the difficulty. With regard to th© question of what nhonld be dona with the J825,000, he would liko to see it applied to the payment of the dobt of the city, but it Was a matter which should be left to tho parties themselves. * The handing over of the wharf to the Uoard was a very desi^blo t ing to effect, and he would be sorry to soo the object defeated. After sqma further debate, touohiiig principally upon the Habilty of tho colony for local loan?, Mr. .Levin agreed to accept tiie proviao^stij^gcstad by the Premier. JNlr. De Lautoub pressed his amendment first. '#

Mr. Htjtchtson said there was one pom to be considered. There was no doubt th eeenrity would be varied to Homo exteni and the committee had to consider how fa that would make the colony re'poneible t the bondholders. Personally, he did no think there was any danger.. The amendment of Mr. De Lantour wa carripd on a division by 24 to 29. The following is the division lißfc :— Ayes 20 — Allwrigbt, Bain, Boetham, Bunny Fisher, J. li. (Bnller), Fox, Gibba, Hall Hur6thduse, Hutchison, Johnston, Kelly Levin, Mason, M'Donald, Moss, Murray . Sntton, TrimMe, Wakefield. Noei, 25Ballanco, Bryco, De Lantour, Finn, Fisher J. T. (Heathcote), Georg", Hamlin, Harris Macandrew, Montgomery, Pitt, Richardson Russell, Saunders, Shephard, Shrimski Speight, Stevens, Swanson, Thornton Turnbull, Wallis, Weston, Wood, Wright. Mr. Hutchison said it was no use pro ceeding with the bill now, and moved tha progress be reported. Mr. Lbvin expressed a hope that th< committee would not agree to report pro greet), as the matter conld afterwards be lef to '.he ratepayers to settle. Mr. Hutchison called for a division, anc the committee negatived his proposal by 4( to 10. Mr. Levin's amendment, leaving th< wharf and store as a security, was in sertod in the next clause, and the rest o! the bill was passed without amendment. DISCUSSION IN THE CITY COUNCII At tho meeting of the Wellington City Council last night, the Mayor mentioned the result of the division in the House on the Wharf Sales Bill. He added that it would now be for the Council seriously to consider the matter. He gathered from the tone of the debato that the House wore not likely to change the decision they hod come to. Councillor Allen asked the Mayor if he informed tho House that tho Council had passed a resolution that the money should go towards paying off the overdraft of the city. The Mayor replied in the negative. Councillor Thomp*on said he was thoroughly astonished when he heard the , result of the diyision. No one had worked harder than himself to get the sale of the wharf made a matter of arrangement, but if the restriction imposed by the House were carried out, he felt snre it would have the effect of putting them back in the position they were before they came to the agreement with the Harbour Board. He could not help thinking that if the bill had been brought forward by any other of the large cities in New Zealand, it would not have been treated in the same way. (Hear, hear.) There was only a thin House at tho timo the division took place, and he flngsf6sted the bill might be recommitted, and the objectionable clause expunged. Councillor Logan was also one of those who supported the sale of the wharf, but he thought the Council and the Harbour Board should get Mr. Levin to withdraw the bill if any amendment were added to it. It was a matter of honor between tho Council and the Harbour Board that the sale was to take place only on the conditions specified ia the agreement between the two bodies. After some further discussion, in whioh Councillors generally expressed themselves strongly against Mr. Do Lautour'u amendment, it was resolved that a special meeting be held on Monday next to further consider the matter. felted