PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4510, 3 September 1875, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, September 2. The Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. kaitancata railway and coal compact. The Kaitangata Railway and Coal Company Empowering Bill was read a third time. the disqualification- question. The Hon. Mr. C. J. TAYLOR said he should like, before the orders of the day were proceeded with, to make some observations on a question personally affecting himself. In that morning’s newspaper his name and that of another member of that House had been brought prominently forward in connection with certain land transactions. He had also noticed that in the other branch of the Legislature their names had been brought forward, and the question raised as to whether they were not disqualified from sitting in that House. He wished distinctly to state that he had had no connection with the Government in relation to those land transactions, and he thought that the hon. gentleman at the head of the Government would bear him out in what he said. (Dr. Pollen : Hear, hear.) The transaction was solely carried out by a gentleman in no way connected with the Government, viz., Mr. Thomas Russell It was not until some time afterwards that he, in connection with certain other gentlemen, was induced to take a share in the company formed to carry out the draining of the particular piece of land referred to. The Hon. Mr. Williamson, whose name had been associated with his (the Speaker’s) was offered a share, but declined to accept. He would therefore beg to state that he was a shareholder in tins company simply as he was a shareholder in any other company with which he was connected, and it was for the House to judge how far such a transaction would bring him within the Disqualification Act. He could only say that,' as charges of unfair dealing had been widely spread, he should himself desire the strictest investigation into all the circnmstances. CAMPBELLTOWN ATHEN.ECM BILL. The House went into committee for further consideration of the above Bill, the third reading having been postponed from Tuesday for that purpose. It was deemed advisable to give notice of the proposed alterations in clause 4, with reference to altering and bequeathing. The Chairman therefore progress, and leave was given to go into committe on the Bill again to-morrow. PALMERSTON WATER WORKS BILL. This Bill was committed, and its third reading made an order for the following day. THE LAND TRANSACTIONS. The Hon. Dr. MENZIES moved without notice, that seeingthat allegations have been made, apparently on authority, that members of the Lerislature, during the term of the present Parliament, have been or are interested in certain agreements or transactions with the Government, involving payment of money, or granting of present or prospective pecuniary advantage to such members, it is expedient to appoint a select committee to inquire into tbe circumstances, and whether the provisions of the Disqualification Act have been infringed, the committee to consist of, The Hon. the Speaker, Hon. Dr. Pollen, Major Richmond, C. 8., Mr. Acland, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Waterhouse, and the mover, to report in seven days. The motion was agreed to, and the Council then adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, September 2. The Speaker having taken his seat, prayers were read. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Ten days’ leave of absence on urgent private affairs were granted to Mr. Taiaroa. QUESTIONS. In answer to Mr. Sheehan, the Native Minister promised to lay before the House papers on correspondence having reference to the operation of the Highways or Hoad Boards Acts in native districts, also all papers and correspondence in relation to the bringing into force of the Oyster Fisheries Act of last session. COMMITTEE. The Hon. Major Atkinson, Sir George Grey, Mr. Stout, Mr. G. E. Parker, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Kolleston were appointed a committee to inquire into alleged breaches of the Disqualification Act. BILLS. The Oamaru Gasworks Bill was read a second time. The report of the committee of Highway Boards Empowering Act 1871 Amendment Bill was agreed to and the Bill read a third time and passed. CONFISCATED LANDS. Heave was given to the Colonial Treasurer to substitute a paper on confiscated lands for one previously presented and containing a slight error. ABOLITION BILL. The Hon. Major ATKINSON rose and said with reference to the amendments proposed by the hon, member for Port Chalmers, the Government were thankful to the hon. member for having proposed the amendments, because it showed that he accepted the position, and intended to improve the Bill if possible ; but he regretted that they could not agree to the resolutions, though they would be prepared to go further on the same road. For instance, the Government would be prepared to introduce a Bill, dividing among the various provinces their share of the land fund, and handing it over to Boards of Works to be appointed

(Cheers.) With regard to education, they would be prepared to act inffi similar manner, and to introduce a Bill, constituting and confirming in their offices the present Boards of Education, and handing over to them all the properties and reserves which are at present vested in them—(cheers) —for educational purposes. (Cheers.) Mr. STOUT remarked that it would be well for the Government to reconsider its position altogether, and bring in these Bills before proceeding further. Mr. WOOD also advocated this course, as it seemed the Government intended to abandon all the appropriation clauses. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The Hon. Major ATKINSON ; Tho Government abandon nothing at all. (Oheois.) Mr, WOOD : The Treasurer said the Government would abandon nothing at all, yet they proposed to bring down a Bill which alters the whole thing. Sir GEORGE GREY said the long discussion which had taken place had given the House fuller information on the subject of the Bill, and he would therefore take the opportunity of remarking upon some of the statements made. He denied that the legal question was a mere technical question as had been alleged. The House was in a peculiar position, for there had been no legal opinion laid before it except a few lines from the present Chief Justice and a few lines from the Solicitor-General, which, after all, was no opinion at all, and whilst there was not a single lawyer in the House who supported the Government, there were several eminent lawyers in the Opposition who entirely disagreed with the Government. Referring to another branch of the subject, he said the point that privileges expressly granted could only be taken away by equally express terms, was an axiom in constitutional law, and he believed if the Chief Justice were in the House he would not support the Government, but would tell them that they were acting illegally, and that no change in a Constitution could take place until after a dissolution. Many constitutional lawyers had held to that doctrine. (Several members : Name ?) He could not remember names just now, but he believed Ereeman was one. He contended that just as the provinces were bound by the Constitution given them by the General Assembly, so the General Assembly was bound to act within the powers granted it by the Imperial Legislature. The duty of the General Assembly in the first instance was to go to the Imperial Parliament, and if the Assembly pursued the course proposed, each province had the right to say, “We came into this federation under a certain compact, and if you break that compact we have a right to consider what our future shall be in every respect.” So long as there was a court of justice he would support this course, until an arbitration had taken place and full compensation given them to atone for the wrongs they had been submitted to, and the maladministration of their affairs. Until this compensation was given, Auckland and all other provinces would be following a proper course in refusing to come into the federation and in claiming to determine what their future should he. The original constitution had been framed so as to appeal to the noblest sentiments of human nature, but this Bill and all measures of the Government appealed to all that was low and base in human nature. Their measures said 1 forego your rights and privileges and we will give you money.” The hon. member for Timaru had said, let us be New Zealanders; but there was no strength in the ai-gument. The Canadas had its legislature, the Cape had its legislature, New Zealand had its legislature, yet all were proud to be called Britons, and so with New Zealand. If the people had their rights and privileges they would he as true New Zealanders as they would be if deprived of those rights and privileges under which their children might rise from municipal council to provincial council, from provincial council to superintendent, from superintendent to legislature, and thence to even the Governorship. (A laugh.) There was nothing ridiculous in that. In England regret had been expressed, in the time of William IV., that the Royal Family were not educated for their position. If that was so, was it not possible that the class of men from whom the Governors were chosen were not so fitted for the task as men brought up in the colony ?—and it would he remembered that already a gentleman had risen through the stages referred to be a Governor. Xt had been said that the people would not lose privileges ; but they would, for the Bill was false on its front, for it ought to be called, not “A Bill to abolish the provinces,” but “A Bill to take away the representation of the people.” “ Provincial district” was substituted for provinces, and representation was taken away. For representative institutions were substituted a government by nominees of the Governor. Major ATKINSON ; No. Sir GEORGE GREY : Who stands up and says “ No.” Major ATKINSON : I do. Sir GEORGE GREY ; Then I can only say you have not read the Bill. (Cheers.) Proceeding, the hon. member said no Government could promise to amend the Bill next session, for they might not have a majority, or the sesssion might be wholly taken up in devising means for the salvation of the country from the impending financial crisis. The measure was only calculated to create a governing class, which had been the tendency of all measures lately, as might be seen by the enormous estates that had been given by the Government to its supporters. The Government were merely seizing the opportunity offered of having a majority at their command, knowing they would never pass it if they went to the country. The Hon. Major ATKINSON : No.

Sir GEOKGE GKEY : Then dissolve —(Opposition cheers) —let the House grant supplies, and let the Government go to the country if they dared. (Opposition cheers.) He said the Government were endeavoring to create a feeling in their favor by throwing out a feeler as to a change in the incidence of taxation. He agreed that burdens should be cast upon property, but he had no faith in the recent conversion of the Government to this doctrine, and believed that if they passed this Bill, they would not attempt to relieve the middle classes, but would cast a burden upon the taxpayer that years of toil would not cast off. He trusted that every man who really loved New Zealand would use every means the rules of the Assembly provided to prevent the Bill passing into law. He intended to do so, and he trusted that he would have many members acting with him. Sir D. McLEAN said it seemed that the whole gist of the hou. member’s argument was that he wished to raise up a republic in the colony, with the only difference that Provincial Governments should form the main part of the machinery. There was no attempt to take away the rights and privileges of the people, and as for the Bill appealing to the lowest motives of the people, the hon. member and his party must have been more guilty for having promised to bring in a Bill which would give the people more. If this Bill was bad, then the hon. member’s must have been more so, for he would have held out greater temptations to the people of New Zealand. It was not necessary to refer to the legal position, for the Government had taken their stand, and would not deviate from it in the si ghtest degree. (Cheers.) As to the rights and privileges being taken away, this was an assertion which the hon. member was particularly demonstrative in making. But what were those rights and privileges 1 Of the nine provinces there were only two which could do anything for the people. On his own admission, the province over which ho, the hon. member for Auckland City West, presided, was in a state of bankruptcy, and he could do nothing for the people. Then where the rights and privileges ? The object of the Bill was not to take away rights and privileges of the people, but to extend them to the utmost, equally to all parts of the colony, and not to confine privileges to favored localities. (Cheers.) It was not because they had a majority in the House that the Government were desirous of passing the Bill. They had a majority all over the country—(cheers)—and the question of delay was utterly and entirely unnecessary. It had been before the country for years, ever since 1858, and even for two years before that. The

people had called out for it from all parts of the colony—(no ; yes, and cheers) —and the Government would continue in their course. He charged the hon. member for Auckland City West with having raised questions which had nothing to do with the matter, in-order to lead the minds of the people away from the subject. The assertion of class legislation was not warranted. Where had been the class legislation? Sir GEORGE GREY : Orders in Council. Sir DONALD McLEAN : Orders in Council ! Wily, no one had been so fond of orders in Council as the hon. gentleman himself. (Cheers.) The people in those days had no rights and privileges—(cheers)—and were governed by a despot. (Cheers.) That hon. gentleman continually got up and said the people were borne down by oppression, that the Government in all their acts acted illegally ; but if the acts of the Government were compared with the acts of the hon, gentleman in olden days, it would be seen that their acts were light and trifling to the despotism that hon. gentleman had been guilty of. (Cheers.) After some further x’emarks, the hon. gentleman concluded a spirited speech by saying the Government had determined the Bill should go on to its conclusion, feeling confident it would meet the approval of and suit the requirements of the people. Mr. CARRINGTON thought the whole effect of the change would be to consolidate the colony, and a more able change than that proposed could not take place. He referred to the altered circumstances of the colony since provinces were established, and expressed the opinion that ten colonies were no longer wanted. He adverted to the financial advantages, and said the advantages were such that it was not an Abolition Bill. It was a destroying Bill, hut not a building up Bill. In fact, he would suggest that the title should be altered to the Provincial Consolidation and Gratification Bill, 1875. He combated the assertion that it was proposed to take away the rights of the people, and, as a twice-retnrned Superintendent, would assert that the rights would he conserved. The people of Taranaki did not care what system they were under so long as they were better off than they were at present. After speaking at length in a humorous strain, he announced his intention of supporting the Bill.

Mr. TAKAMOANA expressed his intention to support the Bill, uot because he was a member of the Government, but because Wanganui had not received justice at the hands of the Superintendent, and because provincialism bad failed in other directions. He also objected to their being two chiefs in New Zealand (referring to King Tawhiao and the Governor). No ship had two captains: and New Zealand had been destroyed because of it. He thought the objection against the Bill were personal ones, and he should support every clause. Mr. MONTGOMERY next addressed the House. He would not argue as to whether the provinces should be abolished. He intended to reserve the right to vote against its third reading. He would do nothing to protract business, but would endeavor in committee to make it as desirable a measure as any member who was its ardent supporter. He believed that the hopes held out as to finance were fallacious, the circumstances of the colony not justifying promises made. With these ideas, and wishing to place the question fairly before the House, be would wish to state that there had been so many changes since the policy of 1870, ns to confuse the minds of the House and the country. Few members of the House fully comprehended tbe financial position of the country. He could not understand them, and, therefore, perhaps was unable to place his views as plainly before the House as be could wish. He then referred to the promise made last session that the railways should be a charge on the Consolidated Revenue, and they found this year in the provincial estimates that £127,000 was to be recovered from the land revenue. He then made a number of statements to show that there were many things in which tbe Ministry were not constant, but that there was one thing in which they were always constant, namely, the borrowing of more money. The pledge given by the Colonial Treasurer in 18 73 to pay off the Treasury bills had been broken by the present Colonial Treasurer, who purposed devoting them to ways and means, and using the surplus to induce the people of the colony to change the Constitution. He would glance at the proposal and see what its effects would be. He then drew a comparison between the provincial revenue of Auckland as at present, and that proposed by the Government, and affirmed his unbelief that the Government could do what they proposed. The money got from confiscated lands in Auckland would, he believed, not do more than meet tbe expenditure consequent on tbe maintenance of roads, bridges, &c. Westland was in much the same position. He then referred more especially to the Colonial Treasurer’s speech with respect to the public loan, in which ho said the hon. gentleman was not speaking to the House but to the country. [Mr. Montgomery proceeded to illustrate his argument by figures, and devoted some time to showing that the expenditure would increase year by year, and place tbe country in an embarrassing position.] Tbe land revenue being absorbed, there would not be a shilling to devote to roads and public works generally, except the £127,000 to road boards and municipalities. It had been the inroads on the colonial chest that had made the necessity for abolition ; and although in saying this he might be putting forth an argument against the provinces, it would demonstaate that he was unbiassed. He said they should take over tbe whole of the liabilities of Auckland, and take its land revenue for making roads and bridges. His impression was that all debts would have to be taken over by the colony, except those for which special security had been given, and he would ask why it should not be done at once. After referring to the question of location, and expressing the hope that the clause for issuing Treasury bills should be struck out, he concluded by excusing himself for having delayed the House so long, in consideration of the importance of the subject to which he had been addressing himself. Mr. W. KELLY did not agree with the member for Akaroa, that £45,000 would not be realised from confiscated lands in the Province of Auckland during the financial year ; a much larger sum might be expected. He further criticised that gentleman’s speech, saying that the out districts had been starved by the Provincial Councils.

Mr. MAY said none of his constituents disapproved of the abolition of provinces, but some wished for delay, and there being such difference of opinion amongst his constituents, he should he guided entirely by his own conscience. He then proceeded to give his reasons for advocating immediate abolition. He spoke principally with regard to Auckland, the Provincial Council of which he likened unto a tree with a little vitality left, but not sufficient to send the sap out of its branches. The financial point of the question which some hon. members had affected to ignore, ho considered of vast importance. Provincialism in Auckland was emaciated for want of being fed. It had no funds, and could not perform its functions. There were now too many lawmaking machines in the colony, and becoming confused, difficulty was found in their administration. It would be better if they had but one Legislature, and one class of laws, and one purse. Ho then referred to the want of harmony in the working of this dual form of Government. With regard to the laud fund, he was always of opinion that that should be the property of the oolong, and made one sum. He took it that the position of Auckland would be greatly improved by the proposed change. The Bill proposed to take over police, gaols, and hospitals. He saw, therefore, with great pleasure those institutions were likely to be well managed, for he had no doubt they would be so under the General Government. For instance, one hon. gentleman had said if the Bill passed he might see the Customhouses barricaded and 1000 men under arms ; ho would therefore be glad to see police not under Provincial Government control. With regard to the Corporation of Auckland, which for some time had received nothing from the Provincial Council, it would get, under the proposed system, in addition or equivalent to rates, some

£6OOO or £7OOO, and if they obtained the licenses they would'get about £BOOO more. This meant that the corporation would receive by the Bill some £14,000 over and above what it received at present. The question of education in Auckland was also one which suggested that a change should be made with as little delay as possible, and he had much pleasure in supporting the motion before the House. Mr. THOMSON moved the adjournment of the debate. The motion was agreed to, the debate to be resumed next (this day) at half-past two.