PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9140, 23 August 1888, Page 6

PARLIAMENT.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday.

The Council met at half-past two p.m.

BILLS ADVANCED. The Local Bodies Audit Act Amendment Bill and the Government Life Insurance Act' Amendment Bill, were read a first time. On the motion of Mr. Pharazyn, it was agreed to rescind the regulations relating to the quarantine of cattle from Australia and Tasmania. The Auckland Hospital Reserves Act Amendment Bill was passed through all stages. The Rating Act Amendment Bill was read a first time.

The Council rose at ten minutes past three.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday. The House met at 2.30 p.m. THE REPRESENTATION' COMMISSION.

Mr. Hislop moved, "That the Hon, T. M. Haul tain be nominated to fill the vacancy on the Representation Commission."

Mr. Macarthck moved an amendment, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable to fill up the vacancy until the question of the adjustment of the quota has been dealt, with." He disclaimed any idea of raising feeling between tho town and country members, but contended there was no pressing necessity for the appointment of this commissioner at such a late period of the session. He reminded the Premier he had promised that the question of quota should be dealt with this year ; but he did not ask the Government to bring in a Bill on the subject. He merely wanted them to defer the appointment of a Commissioner for the present. Mr. Hutchison referred at some length to the careless manner in which the Representation Act had been drafted, a fault shared by some Bills brought in this session. He pointed out that the Act stipulated that the number of members should remain at 95 until the General Assembly was dissolved. Under the Interpretation Act the Assembly was defined as consisting of the Governor and two chambers, and it would need a new Constitution Act to dissolve it. What the Act really meant was, until the House of Representatives had been dissolved; but as it stood, the number of members must remain at 95.

Mr. Hislop said if a lengthy debate was going to arise the Government would prefer to have the matter adjourned for a day or two. This was a very inconvenient time to discuss the question whether the quota should or should not be altered. If there was anything in the point raised by Mr. Hutchison, which he did not imagine, a Bill could be bought in to remedy it. Mr. Samuel thought it was a very interesting point, and ought to be looked into without delay. He hoped the amendment would be carried.

Mr. Seddox also supported the amendment, regretting the House had no opportunity of diseussine it before. Mr. Fish thought Mr. Hutchison's point a very important one. After further discussion the Premier said he was taken by surprise at Mr. McArthur's amendment. He thought there was nothing in Mr. Hutchinson's contention, and that it would be difficult to frame any Bill in which a flaw would not be found by that gentleman, and the member for New Plymouth ; but lie would have the matter looked into carefully. He was quite prepared to deal with the whole questiou of electoral law this session, if members would consent. His pledge was that the House should have an opportunity of considering the whole question, but the time of the Government had been taken up this session altogether in fulfilling pledges made last year. If the House chose to agree with the amendment, he would accept it at once. Mr. Walker asked who but the leader ot the House was responsible for the Electoral Bill not being passed this session ? As to the challenge thrown out, the Opposition knew perfectly well it was useless to move any such motion at this stage of the session. He denied he had been in any way guilty of obstruction, in fact he had been a victim to it.

Mr. Moss said there were plenty of members willing to remain who were not satisfied to leave the affairs of the country as they now stood. Mr. Stewart gave it as his opinion that the Representation Act was rightly drawn as it stood.

The amendment was then agreed to on the voices.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT. The Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. A motion by Mr. Stewart to recommit it was lost by 42 to 24.

PCBLIC WORKS ACT. Mr. Mitchelson moved the second reading of the Public Works Act Amendment Bill, which, he explained, was purely a machinery measure. Mr. E. Richardson took exception to this, as the Bill made some important alterations in the law, and proposed to confer dangerous power on the Government.

Mr. Fish thought it unwise of the Government to interfere too much with the functions of local bodies.

Messrs. Marchant and Mackenzie (Waihemo) took exception to some of the provisions of the Bill, and said the Minister must be prepared to have amendments on some of the clauses.

Mr. Reeves (St. Albans) said the clause providing penalties for non-extirpation of gorse ana briars would be ruinous to many people. Mr. Blakk concurred, and Mr. Kelly and Mr. Allen hoped the Bill would be withdrawn.

Mr. Walkek objected to the measure because it sought to amend all the Acts relating to local bodies. Mr. Ward stronly opposed clause 10, and moved the Bill be read a second time that day two months. Mr. O'Callaghan thought there were some good points in the Bill, and that the Minister should tell the House which were the urgent clauses, and then the rest could be struck out.

Mr. Mitchklson said he would defer the committal of the measure till he had ascertained which were the really necessary portions of the Bill. Mr. Ward then withdrew his amendment, and the second reading was carried on the voices.

HARBOUR ACT. The Premier moved the second reading of the Harbour Act Amendment Bill. It was one of the most important that had come before the Houee for some time, and opened up a principle that might seriously affect the prosperity of the country. One Board was already in default, and New Plymouth would be unable to meet its payments after October next. He thought the House should have full warning that these bodies would be in default to their foreign creditors, but if this were allowed to come about receivers would be put in who could not increase the rates or in any way improve the position of affairs. Such a thing would cause a public scandal which ought to be avoided if possible. He desired the House should take such steps to enable local bodies to impose rates to enable them to meet their engagements, but beyond that the House should not go. He confessed also that he did not like the look of some of the larger Boards, but they would probably make other arrangements. He mentioned that two meetings had been held in hie district, at which it had been decided that a sum should be borrowed on the land fund, instead of increasing the rates. The amount was well within their means, and in committee he should be prepared to go into figures on the subject. He concluded by warning the House that if they rejected the Bill they must be prepared to find the whole of the liabilities of these Boards cast on tho colony. I he debate was interrupted by the halfpast five adjournment. The House resumed afc half-past seven. Mr. Bruce 6aid the Premier had nob advanced one valid reason why the Bill should become law. Nowhere in New Zealand had there been such reckless, unwarrantable, he might say discreditable, watite of money as at New Plymouth. The whole point of the Premier's argument was whether a receiver would have power to effect repairs. He was sure he had not. The Premier said be was so advised.

Mr. Bkuok said it was not so in England, and he thought he was mistaken. He went oa to conduiuu the harbour works at New

Plymouth in the strongest terms, characterising them as a fiendish design. From his own knowledge he was certain, if the harbour ever were completed, it would cost more than the district could afford to keep it open, for where there were nineteen feet of water in 1877, you could now jump on to a sandbank at low tide. The more money was spent the more sand would accumulate. Turning to the financial aspect of the matter, he said there was already a deficit of £4000 per annum, and the people of the place ascribe this to the lact that the land revenue had been interfered with. This was important, because it might lead to the supposition that the House had tempered with the security of the landholders, but he contended that there was nothing in the original Act preventing land tenure being altered to deferred payment, and moreover so little land had been sold lately that even if parted with for cash, it would nob last a year. The contention of tho inhabitants of the district, therefore, fell to the ground. He objected altogether to the House entAngling itself with these local responsibilities, and also to affirming the vicious principle of borrowing money to pay interest. This solution of the difficulty was to make those bodies who had recklessly undertaken perilous and unjustifiable ventures to face the consequence of their action, and to cope with the difficulty themselves. He therefore moved, " That the Bill be read a second time that day three months."

Mr. Ward seconded the amendment. This was purely a matter between lenders and borrowers—the colony was in no way liable.

Colonel FRASERsaid if the Thames Harbour Board was to be excluded from the Bill he hid nothing to say, except that if their property was to be restored the Board would always be able to meet its engagements.

Mr. Samuel said this Bill was brought in to prevent the colony being disgraced. If the New Plymouth Board's coupons were dishonored, it would mean that all shortdated loans would be called in as soon as they expired. He severely reprimanded Mr. Bruce for the language he hart used regarding the breakwater, which he said was exaggerated and incorrect. He claimed Taranaki had been kept back by the native difficulty, and had a perfect right to try and obtain an outlet for its products. He denounced the contemptible untruths that had been levelled at the port of Taranaki, and hoped never to hear again, as Mr. Bruce had asserted, that it was only actuated by a policy of grab. When the work was first undertaken it was only expected to cost £200,000, and it was calculated the £25,000 from the land sales would have averted any necessity for a rate for many years. He quoted the report of the committee which inquired into the subject l*s.t year to show the deficit wiw entirety caused by the sale of land on deferred payment, instead of cash, and to the initiation of the perpetual lease system. It was proved that the people had been led to believe that the land fund would last 26 years, by which time the country would have been settled and the rate would have been small, but the effect of the working of the land laws had never been auspectea. The land fund was to have been used for interest, and it was quite reasonable, therefore, to propose to use it as a security on which to raise money to pay interest. The Bill only gave reasonable relief, and if no help were afforded it would mean ruin to the people of the district, and enormous loss to tho colony from the ill effects of repudiation.

Mr. Ballance would like to feel sure that the raising of money on security of land sales would not prejudice tho position of landholders, but he feared it would only place the Board in a worse position at the end of the four years. He believed, too, that the alteration of the land tenure had actually increased rather than diminished the revenue of the Board. Practicallv, the Bill was meant to lift the burden off the ratepayers, and enable the Board to pay interest for four years, and no longer. It would also involve the raising of port duties to the same amount at Waitara, New Plymouth, and Patea. The House must see that the position of the colony was not prejudicea by the Bill, for he fancied that if the security were varied in the manner proposed it would give the creditor a claim on the colony.

Mr. Fish agreed with Mr. Bruce's views, which were practically unanswerable. Referring to the Otago Harbour Board, he denied there was the slightest danger of its asking to be relieved of its liabilities, as had been hinted.

Mr. Marchant said the Bill was simply brought in on general grounds, to protect the colony from the danger which threatened through certain bodies being unable to meet their engagements. He referred at some length to the position of the Waitara. The residents of that district had done all they could to pet the Government to step in years ago, but Parliament refused, and with it lay all responsibility. The people in the Taranaki district were exactly in the same position as ratepayers of district railways, and he claimed the same consideration for the one which the House had extended to the other. It was no part of the policy of the House to reduce struggliug settlers to destitution, but he waa sure many of them could not afford to pay the rate much longer. He did not like the Bill altogether, but for the sake both of the colony and the district he hoped it would be accepted as the beHt means of meeting the difficulty. Mr. Hutchison objected to Pa tea being included in this Bill for the benefit of the New Plymouth harbour, which fully deserved the strictures passed on it. Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Thompson (Auckland) opposed the Bill. Mr. Ross moved the adjournment of the debate.

Ayes, 27 ; noes, 42. Mr. Mackenzie (Clutha) and Mr. Reeves (Inangahua) spoke briefly against taking over the responsibility of those harbours. Mr. Reeves (St. Albans) felt almost inclined to despair of the colony when the Premier posed as an apologist of reckless speculation. It was absurd to suppose that people had come so low that they could not pay two or three thousand more They had entered into engagements, and were bound to fulfil them.

Mr. Fergus, as an old Taranaki resident, resented the taunts that had been levelled afc it. He was sorry to see a party in the House resolved to oppose all Harbour Board Bills, whether they understood them or not. Sooner or later the House must face this question, or they would have a number of local bodies all over the country trying to thrust their liabilities on it.

Dr. Newman opposed, and Mr. Taiwhanga supported the second reading. Mr. Hislop submitted the whole object of the Bill was to ensure such charges being levied upon harbours as was necee.sary to meet the liabilities of the respective Boards. He alleged there was a great want of sincerity in the opponents of the Bill, who had made up their minds a fortnight ago as to the proposer and seconder of the amendment.

Mr. Mac Arthur opposed the measure. The Prkmikr eaia the opponents of the Bill did not grasp ifcs meaning, which really was to give the people affected a means of meeting their engagements. At present they were tied hand and foot by regulations imposed by the Act, and the Bill was intended to widen the scope. He traversed the statements and arguments of previous speakers to show they had been mistaken in their views, and hoped they would not bring disaster on the colony. It was absolutely impossible to avoid interfering with some of the local bodies for lonr r , and if the Government did not step in and force them to meet their payments, their liabilities would devolve on the colony. Mr. Mknteath could not see how any reasonable increase in the port dues would provide the revenue estimated by the friends of the Bill. He spoke strongly against the measure. The House divided, and the amendment was carried by 44 to 16. The Pbjjmikr announced thai; he proposed to take local Bills on Friday morning. The House adjourned at 1.10 a.m.