THE FINANCIAL DEBATE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11195, 18 August 1898, Page 5

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE.

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION REJECTED. CPee Tlnited Pkbss Association.) ■WELLINGTON. August 17. Tn the Hbuso of Representatives this afternoon, •Mr SYMEB resumed the 6nanoial debate. He contended that (he amßiifimfint had been moved in order to catch the vote of railway employees and discredit the Government control •of the railwaj's. Under the commissif>ner.s' control, lift said, the railways had been starved, for revenue purposes, and it was not til' the Government took control, that the railWays had lieen properly equipped and the nnt'osßary accommodation provided- He dis»Rrend with the proposals respecting preferential duties, and argued that the consumer, would not reap any' benefit by the remission of duties. Despite l.he fact, that there bad been, a good many forfeitures, the reason for which was inability to obtain roads, the improved farm settlements had marked v new era' in the history of the colony. Speaking of the dairy industry, he eulogised the Government.for. their efforts in establishing and fostering it/and suggested that the carriage of dairy produce shouty be; subsidised^. Captain Russell's amendment was .negatived \>y 39 to .27; v.. }. / ".: : The following is tlie division list: — A-gainst the Amendmeijt (39).— Messrs E. j. Allen, Cadman, Carncross, Carroll, I^uncan, Field.' Fisher, Flatman. Gilfedder, Graham, * Guinness, Hall-Jones, Hogg, Holland, Houston, .T. Hiitcheson, Jbyfce, Larnachj. Lawry, M'Gowan, J. M'Kenzie, R. M'Kenxie, M'Nab, Meredith; Millar, Mills, Montgomery, Morrison, O'Meara, O'Regan, Parata, Seddon, Stevens," Symes, Tanner, K. Thompson, -'. Thompson. Ward, Wilson. ■For tho Amendment (27).—Messrs Bolland, Brown, Buchanan. Carson, Crowther, Duthie, Fraser, Herries, Hunter, Kelly, Lang, Lewis, M'Guire, M. J. S. Mackenzie, M'Lean, Mas.sey, Monk, Moore, Eirani, Kolleston, . Eussell, Sl"igo, Smith. Taylor, J. W. Thomson, Wason, Wright. -■•■■.. Pairs.—.Against the Amendment: Messrs Wi Perc, Steward, Kaihau. For the Amendments Messrs Lethbridge,. George Hutchison, Heke. Mr MOORE asserted, that the railway's were much bettor managed when under the control of the commissioners than under Government control. He condemned the .Government's land policy, and said this year's land report was the most damaging one to an Administration ever laid on the table of the House. .From1 the- tables contained therein, he showed that there was a general desire on the part of the people- of .th<j colony for , freeholds, as compared with'leaseholds. He pointed put that the liabilities oti' the consolidated and public ivorks funds at the end of the financial'year were larger than they had been r or some time, which lie considered was not sound finance. The proposed preferential duties in favour of Great Britain was a step in the right ilirsci.inn. Mr. BROWN,' to show the mismanagement of the railways' under' Government control, said he had'•frequently to wait,- riot I we.'or three.days.but over a week', for 'trucks. Speaking of' the' co-operative system; htisaid the\vork';dop.evunder.it <wa,v costing more than if it had been done under contract. He did not consider the -large amount of deposits in the Post Office: Sayiivgs Bank ..an. indication of prosperity.-as ia'great-deal of it was deposited in order tc obtain h.higher rate-of interest... He would liave preferred to see more money invested in trade and. agricultural industries than deposited, in the bank. He contended that the middleman would reap, benefit of the proposed preferential duties. The House adjourned frcm 5.30 to 7.30. On resuming,,. ... . ...'■,. Mr MONTGOMERY expressed the opinion that the amendment of the Opposition was, considering the occasion, a trivial me. and really endorsed the policy of the Government. The finances, of the polony wore undoubtedly in a stronger position than in 1880, but this was not due tp. any particular party,, but to the general prosperity ot the colony. It was alc.ost a scandal the way in which the revenue of the colony was under-estimated in order to swell the surpluses, and it was a trick unworthy of the Colonial Treasurer. He con-. - tended- that-:the amount transferred .to the-pi-.b.lio' works fund from the consolidated revenue should bs eliminated from the consclidated surplus, which would for the past year have been £339,280. Speaking of loan . conversions, he said the colony would have been in a much better position if the Conyer- ' sion Act had not been passed, as conversion operations relieved the interest charge for the time being only, and added to the debt of the colony .without the authority of Parliament. The sooner the.consols account was done away with the. better. • ' ' Mr DUTHIE referred to, tho fact that; the last speaker- had devoted a great part':of his speech to' bemoaning the shortcomings of the Government, and advised him to consider whether it ,was, his .duty to continue to support the present Administration.- He; (MrDuthie) was pleased to find the finances of the colony in such a strong position) and the country was to be congratulated upon jit. If there was any. principle in connection with finance- it was accuracy, and so far .as, the Colonial Treasurer was concerned he knew nothing of it,-"as he was never accurate. As evidence of this, he pointed out that there was a difference of over £7110,000 between the amount of surpluses under the present Administration as stated by Mr Ward in London in. 1895 and in this year's Financial Statement., He complained that owing to the refusal' of the Government to supply returns .it was impossible to discuss the effects of the revisal of the tariff. With respect to land (Settlement, he pointed out that, with about 20 different tenures to choose from, settlement of the land was not being carried on. with that success one would have expected. The . prosperity of the colony . was due to private enterprise, and not to the Government. The expenditure on the goldfields had not been warranted by results. The accumulation of money in the Savings Bank was not.a sign of prosperity, and was really a source of danger in case of a crisis occurring. Mr LAWRY, referring to the arguments of previous speakers, pointed .out that the customs duties were a voluntary form of taxation; and a rich man in-ohe night might contribute more than a settler would in a year. Although he had had doubts respecting the probable result of lending money to settlers in Auckland province, owing to the poor quality of the soil, he was pleased to say that the advances made by the Government to Auckland settlers had been more successful and attended with less loss than in any other part of the colony. Referring to the attack irtade on the Government' control of railways, he said if there was one thing more than another which had made the Government popular it had. been the administration of the .Minister, for. Railways. He warmly supported the Government's Native land proposals. Mr WASON said the country was wearying of the present Administration and of the Premier's iron rule. Everything indicated that the present minority would soon be the majority. He condemned the Government's action .in connection with the Midland railway, the Bank of New Zealand, and the Assets Realisation Board. With respect to the Bank of New Zealand estates, he considered it would pay the colony to put people on them to work thdm rent free. The land for settlements policy had done more, probably, than anything else to enhance the prestige of the Government in the country. To a certo.in extent he sympathised with that policy; but it had one very great defect, in that the lands were cut up into too small areas. By far the greatest defect in the system was the refusal of Ministers to permit settlers under the Lands for Settlement Act to convert their leaseholds into freeholds. Mr HERRIES pointed out that the public works fund had been under-spent by £128,000, which meant that the expenditure had been over-estimated, and settlers in the country deceived. Votes were passed for roads and bridges, and settlers' hearts rejoiced that they were getting justice done them, but they subsequently found that none of the votes had been spent. The same system had been followed in conection with the Lands depart-

| merit, where the amount nuder-spent was j £207,000. He condemned the co-operative system, which he characterised as humbug. the settlers under the Land for Settlements Act were all anxious to obtain the freehold; On the motion of Mr FT. ATM AN, the debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 12.35. .