HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 850, 15 June 1888, Page 24

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WEDNESDAY. JUNE 13. Tho House met afc 2.30. land ron settlement bill. This Bill (Sir George Grey’s) was received from the Waste Lands Committee, and its committal set down for the 20th instant. THE CASE OF JOSHUA JONES. The Premier, in answer to Mr Turnbull, said gentlemen had been selected for the Commission upon the case of Mr Joshua Joues, of Mokau, but nothing had been decided yet, and he would probably be able to make an anuoum ement next day. CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES BILL. Mr Rhodes, resuming the debate on the second reading of this Bill, said that although he had voted with the Government so far, he could not support them in their tariff proposals, considering that further reductions could be made in expenditure. He disapproved the proposals to raise the school age and to abolish the Education Boards. He did not profess to know anything of the railway department, but ho felt certain that

receipts could bo increased if freights were reduced, tt'6 should' support the amendment 61 Mr Beotham, because he thought it "wais impossible until the Public Works Statement came down to say whether or not-fur-ther retrenchment could bo made. Mr Blake declared himself neither a Freetrader nor a Protectionist, but a New Zealander. He advocated Protection as having given excellent results in Victoria, and said he should ucoopt the tariff as a question of necessity, Mr Hard, who wits almost inaudible in the press gallery, remarked that the Minister for Education bad deserted tho pledges which he gave at the hustings. (Cheers.) He (Mr Izard) felt bound to oppose tho financial proposals of the Government, for he felt that further retrenchment might have beon effeoted by which this burdensome tariff now before the House might have been obviated ; for he doubted whether all possible retrenchment had been made. With reference to raising tho school age, he had voted against it last year, but ho had seen reason since to doubt whether he was right in doing so. He held, also, that a small oharge might be. made for education in the higher standards—one shilling a week, say. He was in favor of stopping the San Francisco mail service,..and held that subsidies to local bodiesTought to bo abolished. Though he did not suggest that an amount equal to the. , .whole of the deficit could be saved, still ho considered that the taxation now proposed could be very largely if not wholly averted. He should vote for Mr Beetham’s amendment, but he must say that he thought it was beating the air to attempt to pass such amendments. He thought it was only a waste of time. (Cheers.) Alluding to the peculiar position of parties, he denied that the Freetraders had left the Government; it was the Government that had left them aml gone over to the Opposition, who had received them with ©pen arms and had for the time been kind to them. That was the state of things now, but what would it be presently. Was it afc all likely that the Opposition would continue to support 'the Governmant? (“No,” and cheers.) 1 He contended that the proposed change in the fiscal policy of the country ought to have been placed before the constituencies. The greater part of the new taxation would fall on the working classes, who would be materially, injured by it. He was told that here in Wellington already prices had been raised to the consumer iu anticipation of the duties. After stating his objections to Protection, he took particular objection to the proposed duty on salt, which ho said was very la'gely used iu local induatries. He also disseuted from the proposed duties on soap and soda-ash, and said he had been called on by a constituent engaged in the whip making industry, which, he was told, would be practically destroyed by the duty proposed to be put on leather. Mr Andebson opposed the tariff, arguing that the taxation proposed would fall very heavily upon the farming community. •He expressed himself very strongly opposed to borrowing. Mr Louqhrey was very well satisfied with the tariff on the whole, though there were some items he objected to. He thought Protection and Freetrade might very well have been left out of this discussion. (Hear, hear.) He denied that farmers would be injured by the Customs taxation, and contended that under a Protective policy farming and agricultural implements would be cheaper. Mr R, Thompson intimated that he should vote against the amendment in the absence of any information as .to how Mr Beetham proposed to make savings. Mr Monk vigorously condemned the pro-perty-tax and the policy of the country in the past. With reference to the tariff, he •proclaimed himself a Freetrader logically, but a Protectionist at heart. (Mr W. P. Reeves : We’ll behead you.) The hon gentleman was still speaking when the 5.30 adjournment was taken.

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7-30. Mr Monk, coninuing his speech on tho Customs Duties Bill, strongly advocated retrenchment in all departments of the public service. He complained that sufficient reductions had not been made in the Survey, Railways, and Education Departments ; and with reference to the latter, suggested to tho Minister of Education that he should, instead of giving to the House so many quotations, study one for himself—“ Virtute, non verbi3.” Mr Hobbs censured tho Government for not making a statement when a no-confidence motion was moved. He pppoaed the pro-perty-tax, spoke in. favor of a Protective policy, and urged the House to get on with the business as speedily as possible. Mr O’Conor expressed general approval of the policy of tlio Government, though 110 disapproved tho duty On tea and on salt. He strongly advocated further retrenchment, and suggested the abolition of Hansard.

Colonel Fraser, though in favor of Protection, disapproved the tea duty. He gave the Government credit for their work in the way of retrenchment, although he remarked that he did not consider the Ministry a good one for mining districts. Ho should give the Bill a general support in committee. Mr Moss thought there was about the policy of the present Government a good deal of ~ “ The devil was ill, the devil a monk would

. be. The devil got well, the devil a monk was

he.” He thought the Colony was indebted to the Stock Excbauge for bringing them to a sense of their position. He objeoted to the duty on toa, and said the Premier was to blame for the present position of. affairs, he having taken an aotive part in abolishing the provinces. Referring to Protection, he denied that tho word “ protection ”, could be used. What was desired was to put on defensive duties to regulate tho trade of the country. He advised Freetraders to visit the Pitone Woollen Factory and "see the number of people who were employed there, aud the settlement which had been promoted by the factory. He went on to speak in favor of Protection, and denied that it would be injurious to farmers. He intimated that he should support the tariff as now proposed, believing that if necessary an alteration could.he ipade in the future.

Mr J. McKenzie vigorously condemned the administration of railway matters. He thought further retrenchment could be effeoted in many departments of the public servioe, and complained that what had been done had been carried out very largely on political principles. (“No!) When all possible retrenchment had. been effected, he Would give the Government all assist, ance in imposing such taxation as was shown to be necessary. The Minister of Education said he had been charged by members and by certain newspapers with inconsistency on thequestion of local industries. With a view to proving that he had not been inconsistent, Mr Fisher quoted largely from Hansard, and from the , New Zealand Times’ report of his speeches to his .constituents, tie denied that "ho hadvaried one jot in his opinions, and said the opinions which he expressed in 1886 on this question were the opinions he had held ever since. It had been asserted in a Wellington newspaper that evening that he had swung round on this question ; and he considered it fair to himself and his constituents that the person malting that assertion should prove it in the face of his denial. He would not, as he might, draw tho attention of the House to the change which had taken place in the opinions of the paper in question; but ho would simply call the attention of the editor of that paper to an article which he (the editor) wrote and published in the paper on tho 2nd March, 1887. Dr Hodgiiinson said that, unless the Government were able to show more clearly that further retrenchment could not be effected, or that this taxation was necessary, he should have to vote for the amendment. Mr Taylor advised the Freetraders not to waste time in useless discussion. Referring to Mr Izard's speech he said the duty on soap would not affect the working classes, because very little soap was imported. Mr Ormond said that when Mr Fisher arose he was in hopes that that gentleman was about to give the House some information as to the necessities for the large taxation proposed ; and he was greatly astonished when he sat down without saying anything about it. The amendment of Mr Beetham, he took it, was moved as a protest against levying taxation until that information was given to the House, and he'regretted that the Government had not given it. He explained passingly that be should not take up the attitude assumed by other hon gentlemen and oppose the Government after their present proposals, with which he disagreed, had been disposed of. The questions decided at the last elections were that there were to be reductions in expenditure, and that there was to be no more taxation unless it was unavoidable. The question at issue now was whether all possible retrenchment had been effected before this extra taxation was asked for. The taxation now apparently about to be enforced was in his opinion unjust aud unfair in its application. It would bear unjustly on the industrial classes, aud it was going to be carried mainly by the votes of those who claimed to represent the working cla'-sen. Were the industrial classes at the present time in a position to have that taxation imposed on them ? They knew, from what they saw going on, that they were not. For the tariff meant a very large increase on the articles most in use by those classes. He contended that if the Propertytax exemptions had been reduced to £IOO or £2OO, and if services had been out down as they could have been, this taxation would not have been necessary. There could be little doubt that if the question was properly put tho House was in favor of raising the school age to six. (Cries of “No”-and “Yes.”) He hoped, however, that Mr Tanner would not press his motion to raise 'the age to seven. Referring to the report of the Minister of Education, he said he felt bound to rogretthetoneofthatreport, in which the boards were discussed in a manner which he considered not warranted ; and he complained that misleading figures were given in that report. He quoted those referring to the Hawkes Bay distriet, in which, he 6aid, there was a “ gross slander.” He considered. also, that if the vote had been fairly taken the House was in favor of a very large reduction in or the abolition of subsidies to local bodies. He remarked in this connection that Mr Ritchie, in proposing the Local Government Bill now before the House of Commons, said it was intended to do away with the “ ill-advißed system of grants in . aid” (otherwise subsidies). He thought that in the present condition of the Colony it would have been better not to fund the deficit this year, and he could not, therefoie, join in the congratulations which Mr Ballance and the Treasurer had given to each othor for reformation in this respect. Ho denied, indeed, that the Treasurer had any right to claim credit for what he had done in the matter. Finally, ho wished to say a few words to those other members who were opposing the Government, and who had taken a more decided stand than he had. Speaking with a large experience of Parliament, he would say to those members that there were alternatives to be ■considered always, and would advise them to consider the alternatives now. Moreover, there were other important questions to be considered —the land folioy of the present Minister of Lands, for instauoe, which was to his mind of much more importance. He did not approve the Native policy of the present Government, but he contended that it was infinitely better than the ill-con-sidered, mischievous legislation introduced by Mr Ballance, which had brought all the .bad effects he and others had predicted. But because he diffored from tho Government he was not goiDg to oppose them with a view to handing them over to the tender mercies of his friends opposite. (Cheers.) Mr Buxton had no wish to grow old in politics if he never had any better ideas than those of Mr Ormond. (Laughter and cheers.) He expressed an opinion that the party to which he belonged was stronger now than’ when it had a head, in spite of what the “confounded Freetraders ” had said. He expressed entire accord with the tariff proposals of the Government. Mr Menxkath said they bad heard from the Premier that his Ministry was not a Protective one, but later on the Minister of Education explained that he was a consistent Protectionist, and therefore was justified in the course the Government were taking. He hoped the Premier would explain that

anomaly when he arose. The Government were now asking the people to pay Customs taxation for tho identical purposes to which it was proposed by the late Government last year to devote the extra Customs taxation then proposed. Was that a position for.any consistent man? This, he contended, was not the time to throw so much additional taxation on the people—a time when incomes and prices of produce were so low, and when the Government were proposing to borrow for the purpose of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in fifty different directions: Was it right in such circumstances to tax the people for public buildings, and to make up a ,defioienoy in the railway receipts ? Yet it was proposed to go on constructing railways ! He quoted from remarks made by the Premier in ISB7 denouncing the proposal then -made to pay subsidies out of Customs taxation. Having ..dealt with the question of Freetrade and Protection,. Mr Menteath concluded by saying ho should vote for the amendment. On the motion of Mr O’Callaghnn, the debate was adjourned till next day, and the House rose at 12.15.