PARLIAMENTARY NEWS.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 11, 7 August 1894, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY NEWS.

HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES. DEBATE ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT. The Hon J. G. Ward moved that the House go into Committee of Supply. He said he proposed dealing with some matters that had come to his knowledge since the delivery of the Financial Statement. He thought the House would agree with him that nothing was attempted to be covered up in the Budget, but he regretted he could not compliment those who were opposed to the Government on the stand they had taken over his proposals. He referred to interviews that had taken place between Sir Robert Stout and representatives of the press, and said it was remarkable that Captain Russell had expressed similar opinions to press representatives. He commented on several -of Sir R. .Stout’s assertions, and with respect to the deposit asked from insurance companies, said the object the Government had in view was to compel these people to invest in New Zealand securities. Would Sir Robert Stout deny that the two millions for the Bank of New Zealand was only a contingent liability. The colony was not called on to pay any interest on that amount unless the bank made default. How, then, could Sir E. Stout inform interviewers that the Government were about to borrow six millions, when two millions of it were simply guaranteed to the bank, and the shareholders paid interest on it. He denied that the cheap money scheme was borrowing, and asked how a sum to be appropriated for the purchase of land could be called borrowing. The proposal to institute colonial consols, he contended, was a safe and sound one. The Government were not blind to the fact that it might divert money from other channels, and if it were found that their system worked prejudicially in any way the Government were prepared to exercise their judgment and to regulate the scheme accordingly. As to their proposals regarding private savings banks, he might point out that these proposals were not at all compulsory. It had been found out during the last twelve months that some of these institution! were not in as good a condition as they ought to be, and he instanced the case of the foolish run which took place on the Auckland Savings Bank last year. If the Government had not guaranteed the deposits of the bank there was no telling where the run would have ended. People had made representations to the Government that some ofthese savings banks should be absorbed, and the whole object the Government had in view was the safety of the public. If there was any proposal of borrowing at all in the Budget it was merely for the sum of £250,000 for opening up land for settlement. He next referred to the statement respecting the Budget made by Dr Newman, and quoted from speeches made in the recess by that hon gentleman, in which he advocated a loan of two millions for the purpose of carrying on public works with more vigor than hitherto. If Dr Newman was sincere in the views then expressed, he should now support the Government in the reasonable proposal to borrow the sum of £250,000. Those members who bad in effect supported the policy of the Government before that policy was brought down should not now revile them for making proposals contained in the Budget. The policy of the Opposition was to put the town against the country, but the policy of the Government was prepared in the best interests of the colony, and they were prepared to face the country on that policy. The Hon. Mr E. Mitchelson regarded it as one of the most wild cat Budgets ever delivered in the House. It was a policy of bubbling or bursting with the Government. The only pleasing announcement in the Budget was the statement that there was a saving of revenue over expenditure of £74,000 for the year. The liabilities of £IOI,OOO at the end of the year should have been deducted from the £290,000 surplus shown, which would have left the net surplus available £189,000. He estimated that outstanding Treasury Bills amounted to one million. The Budget showed the public debt had increased by £1,531,180 as compared with 1891, which was not bad for a non-borrowing Government. The Atkinson Government had put 9,579 more people on the land than during the last three years of the present Government. He considered the position of the Bank of New Zealand Assets Company was largely due to the legislation of the present Government, which prevented the Company selling its lands. He denied that the Maoris were in accord with the native land proposals of the Government. He disagreed with the cheap money scheme. It would interfere with the lending operations of the Government Life Insurance and Public Trustee Departments.

Sir Robert Stout asserted that there was no surplus at all this year without borrowing, and there was an increase in interest and sinking fund of £BO,OOO. There was nothing on the face of the Budget but annual borrowing. The proposed borrowing for this year amounted to three millions. Ministers were pimping the colony under the heel of debentureholders in London. The Liberal programme was now to be one of ,c spoils to the victors.” He did not object to the State lending money to farmers if it were only on mortgage. The Hon Mr Seddon spoke after the supper adjournment, and said he was laboring under considerable difficulty iu following such a cold-blooded speech by the senior member for Wellington, but he would be doing wrong if he allowed such a speech to go without a reply from him. If that speech were made by the leader of the Opposition, he could understand it, hut ho could nut understand the action

of one who should be helping them to fight the battles of the people against those who, if they had an opportunity would undo all that had been done for the last four years. He twitted Sir R. Stout with the failure of the Stont-Vogel administration, and said it was no new departure to purchase native lands, and if Sir R. Stout were true to his public utterances he would support the Government in bringing back the pre-emptive right, and in upholding the treaty of Waitangi. He contended that the Government had been “ self-relying,” and had not borrowed money; nor did the present proposals amount to a borrowing policy. He could not but express the honor he felt when Sir Robert Stout stated the colony would be under the heel of the foreign money lender. . It was not foreign debenture holders but loan companies and mortgagees that had been the curse of the farmers of this colony, and the Government intended to remove that state of things by their proposals. He resented Sir Robert Stout’s remarks that the Liberal Party were being driven like dumb dogs in the House, and he warned that hon gentleman those dogs, as he called them, would bark and bite for the people and the country. Sir Robert Stout’s action towards the Budget proposals was simply to cause a split in the Liberal Party. He defended the Government policy at great length. MrE. M. Smith generally approved of the Budget. He could not give his consent to the borrowing proposals until he had consulted with his constituents. Mr McGowan did not consider the policy of the Government was a borrowing one in the ordinary sense of the term. He regretted the question of reform in local government was being postponed, and he was also sorry to see that more encouragement was not to be given to the mining industry of the colony. He was very doubtful about the success of financial aid to settlers, because the tendency was to encourage the worst class of men. In making., these advances great care would have to be taken in lending this money-to the proper class of settlers. He warmly approved of the consols scheme, and thought it would tend to make the colony rich and prosperous. Mr McLachlan said the Budget proposals would give relief to people who had never been legislated for before, and the fact that farmers would now be able to get a reduction of two to three per cent on mortgages would be a very considerable relief to them. He pointed out that the savings deposits of the people were increasing, and thought this was a sufficient reply to the complaint of croakers that the country was going to perdition. He generally supported the Budget proposals. Dr Newman regarded the Budget as an extraordinary one. It did not remit but increased taxation. The Treasury was so short of money that 500 co-operative laborers had been dismissed. According to his reading of figures, the Government proposed to borrow this year no less than £7,218,000—a larger sum that any Treasurer bad ever yet proposed in any one year. Friday, August 3rd.

In reply io Sir Robert Stout the Premier said he hoped to have the Licensing Bill circulated immediately the Financial debate was over. He also hoped it would be like last year’s Bill, and that it would give satisfaction to everyone. FINANCIAL DEBATE. Captain Bussell said it was a most unconstitutional proceeding on the part of the Premier to threaten the House with a dissolution, seeing that they had just come back from a general election. Mr Montgomery had told them there was no borrowing policy if the money was to be invested in such a way as to get full interest. Why, every loan issued in the colony had imposed further taxation on the people, and the more loans they raised—no matter for what purpose—the more taxation they would have to pay. He (Captain Bussell) claimed to be a Liberal, and he fearlessly asserted that Sir R. Stout had done more in the cause of Liberalism than the whole of those gentleman on the Treasury benches. He quoted figures from the Budget to show that the actual increase of the public debt since the present Ministry took office was £2,284,430. As to the Bank of New Zealand, he questioned whether the House had done wise in strengthing the position of that institution without having more information at their disposal. He complained of the lack of information on the subject, and said it was a matter of vital importance to the taxpayers of the colony, and they were entitled to demand the fullest information as to the real extent of the guarantee which the colony was committed to by the recent banking legislation. In hie opinion it was the bad financing of the Treasurer himself that had brought about the recent banking crisis. He referred at considerable length to the position of the Assets Company, and said as the Bank of New Zealand and this company were one the colony was committed to looking after that company's affairs as well as those of the bank. The whole position demanded careful enquiry. The Hon J. McKenzie said Captain Russell had stated that he had threatened a dissolution but he denied he had ever done so. He had said if the Land for Settlement Bill were rejected the Government would have a right to appeal to the country on it, and as long as he sat in the House he would never be afraid to call a spade a spade, whether it was constitutional or not. Captain Russel’s discovery that Sir Robert Stout was a true Liberal had evidently only been made a fortnight ago. In defending the cheap money scheme, he said they were told by Sir R. Stout they should assist other people as well as farmers, but he would point out that all the wealth of the

country came from the land, and they were bound to assist farmers as much as possible to make lond more reproductive. If the lending board did its duty there would be no fear of any loss to the colony. He disputed Mr Mitchelson’s figures as to the settlement of the land, and said he had pnt 365 more people on the land in three years than the late Government had done. He claimed to have stopped dummyism all over the colony, and that was why he was so unpopular with land speculators at the present time. Mr Earnsbaw said he had been returned to support a self-reliant and nonborrowing policy, and he should, therefore, oppose the financial proposals of the Government as strongly as be could. The Budget, in his opinion, was borrowing from beginning to end, no matter what Ministers called it.