THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1905. THE PUBLIC REVENUES ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13288, 20 May 1905, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1905. THE PUBLIC REVENUES ACT.

A somewhat amusing attempt is being made at the present time by the Lyttelton Times, in concert with other Ministerial organs, to prove, what Mr Seddoli alleges, that " The Public Revenues Act, 1900," the repeal of which is demanded by Mr Massey, is/in respect of its principal features, virtually a re-enactment of statutes that have for many yeais » been tho law of the land. It must, we should imagine, go against the grain With the Lyttelton Times, which has, it says, never approved of the Public Revenues Act—for, as it admits, the measure dispenses with several useful safeguards upon the public expenditure,—to be forced into a position whsreiu it must do its best to justify a law that is objectionable. And, to do it justice, it refrains from going to the lengths of misrepresentation, to which some of its abettors proceed, in the effort to substantiate the assertions Mr Seddon has made in reply to the criticisms of the Leadei of the Opposition upon the , Act. The Lyttelton Times does, however, commit itself to the remarkable statement that the Public Revenues Act afforded no authority for interference with the payment of members. If' this were so, then, " tho £A 0 steal," as it has been called, was hot accomplished by means of the Act. What, however, are the facts? Our Chnstehurch contemporary has • been at great paind to compare provisions of "Tho Public Revenues Act, 1900," with the provisions they have superseded in former enactments. But very curiously it has, in reproducing sections of the Act for the information of its readers, entirely omitted to quote the section under which the particular iniquity of the payment in 1900 of the additional sum of M 0 to members 'of Parliament was perpetrated. v Thi9 omission on ils part, when it was professing to instruct tho public concerning the provisions of the ,law, can only be attributed to one or other of two causes. -It was 'due either to

design or to forgetfulness of "the' existence of the section in question. It is in the meantime fail- to suppose that it was because bur contemporary had failed to icmember the fact that tho Act actually contains the provision which expressly rendered it possible for this payment to be made '.hat it has omitted to quote' the action. We propose to Supply the Dinisaon. The clause in question is the following:—

3. In any cato whore any payment of an item 13 provided for in tho Estimates, as passed by tho House of Representatives, and is included in tho total of » vote in the Appropriation Act, such payment of the said item may be lawfully made, axtthing is ant Act to THE CONTftUtY NOTWITHSTANDING, and tho 6aid payment shall be deemed to irrespective of any appropriation or limit contained in any such lastmentioned Act: Provided that in no case shall the amount so paid exceed the total sum of the item voted: Provided further that this section shall apply only to piymonts which could not lawfully bo made if this section were not in operation. Now, at the time of tho passing of "The Public Revenues Act, 1900," the salaries of members of the Lower House were fixed at £240 a year. And, as they wero thus fixed by 6tatute, they could not, ss the law then stood, he increased by a simple vote on the Estimates. Any increases would, in the language of the section, bo payments which could not lawfully be mqclo. It was to overcome this obstacle that this section was inserted in the Act. the Opposition in Parliament being too "weak numerically to offer an effective resistance to the device which thus cleared the wa.y for lite raid upon the Treasury that was accomplished, immediately after the measuro had received the Governors assent, by the introduction of tho Supplementary Estimates and by the passags in them of the sum providing for tho extra payment to members. This addition of £40 to the salary of each member of the House for that year could not, as tho law was, have been made if the section we have quoted had not been included in tho Public Revenues Act, and consequently the Act had a must intimate connection with the perpetration of the "steal." Moreover, so long as this provision in the Act remains unrepealed, it is open to any Government-and to its suppol't&s to conspire to plunder the Treasury again at any lime in the same way and for Avliatcver sum they may think ht. It places a very dangerous power in the hands of unscrupulous Ministers and unsciupulous membeis, and it should, as the Opposition demands, be lepealed straightaway. The Lyttelton Times admits that the provision in Mr Scddcn's " Public Revenues Act, 1900," empowering tho Government to transfer a vote in the Appiopriation Act in aid of any other vote in the same class affords much greater latitude thaii Ministers were allowed under previous enactments. Mr Seddon himself is less ingenuous, however, and lias claimed that tho power that is now exercised under the authority of the Act 01 1900 was equally exercised by the Stafford and AVatefnouse Ministries under the authority of " The Public Revenues Act. 1867." We deem it desirable, therefore, to show that the Act of 1900 materially extended the powers of the Government- -and incidentally, of course, diminished the authority of Parliament,—and this will be apparent to the public from a comparison of the provisions of the Acts in Question. They are as follows: — "Public R"ifnuc? "Public Beienues Act, 1£67." Act, 1900.'' 30. If and so 4. jl) As and often as tho Go- when directed bv lermnent shall the Governor, ran deem it necessary MOXF.is available for the public ser- iff reject or axt vice to alter the vote in the Approsums which may priation Act may have been voted in lie transferred in the annual Ksti- aid of any other mates for each vote in the same particular service, class: Provided it shall be lawful that the total sum for tho Governor, voted for any class by Order-in-Coun- shall not Lo therecil, to direct that by exceeded, nor tlieio shall 1-e ap- any salary or plied in aid of any ollier ( chargß fi\cd vote which may bv permanent Act be found to be in- alteied. sufficient ant surplus akisint; OUT or AXY VOTE OP 'HIE SAME CUSS ill th e Estimates: Provided alway3 tliat'notliinff herein contained shall authorise the expenditure i of any larger sum upon the service of each class than the sum appropriated to such class by tho General Assembly, nor to authorise tho payment of any salary or other e\nenditurc the amount of which is fixed by tho Civil List Act or by any other Act permanently appropriating public money. The essential differcncc between the provisions of the two Acta must be clear to any person who is not pre- : pared to shut his eyes to it. The Act of 18G7 authorised the Government to transfer surplus votes — sums, that is, in excess of the amount required • in respect of a vote—for ' expendituie upon other services jifro- ! vided for in the same class. And , the various amendments of the Pub- , lie Revenues Act that were enacted 1 between 18G7 and 1900 preserved 1 this provision. It was retained in 1 the Act of 1878 and in the Act of 1 1891, and it was the latter Act that 1 was in force in 1900 when Mr Sed- ' don introduced his notorious measure and in it repealed the provision for i tho transference of surplus sums from one vote to another in the same class . and secured the enactment instead of j the provision in terms of which he t could, if he chose, transfer an entire J vote for a particular service and ' utilise it for expenditure upon an- 1 other service in the same class. _ ' Under this provision the Govern- j ment could take a vote for the Cat t lins River railway and expend it j upon a line on the West Coast or in | the North of Auckland, and the in- 1 tention of the House of Representa- t tives in voting sums of money upon f tho Estimates might thus he com- f pletely defeated. As a matter of J fact, the Government utilised in 1901 0 the power it thus acquired in 1900 by taking £2i,000 out of the vote of 1 0 £100,000 for the Midland railway j, and expending £5000 of it on the B Paeroa-Waihi line and £6000 on the v Gisborne-ICaraka line, and devoting n the odd £10,000 to the vote in re- c specfc of "permanent way and other *

i' materials." The section under which . this transference of votes was effected i is, intelligent electors will'recognise, r one that improperly curtails the parfa liamentary control of the purse. The • demand for its repeal, along with the k repeal of other objectionable' pros visions of the Actj is consequently i one in favour of the assertion of ; democratic principles in connection i with the expenditure of the funds of the colony.