NZ. PARLIAMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2111, 9 August 1894, Page 17

NZ. PARLIAMENT.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1. In the House of Representatives to-day the afternoon sitting was taken up with replying to a long string of questions and a discussion on the North Island Main Trunk railway on a motion to adjourn the House. In the evening the debate on the Financial Statement was taken, the Treasurer adopting the unusual course of speaking for an hour in moviDg to go into Committee of Supply. His speech was mainly deToted to the criticisms of members telegraphed by the Daily Times correspondent. He was followed by the Hon. Mr Mitchelson, whs sought to show that he was justified in terming the Statement a wild-cat Budget. Mr Tanner succeeded, and then came a trenchant criticism from Sir R. Stout, which brought the Premier to his feet in reply, and then the debate was adjourned.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS,

Replying to Mr Joyce, whether the Government will during the recess prepare regulations for the civil service of the colony under which all appointments to vacancies in the public service (whether for cadets or casual cl«rks) shall be made from the several electoral districts in rotation, so that no district shall have the privilege of nominating more than one candidate until the other 73 districts Bhall havo been consulted, The Hon. R. J. SEDDON said the Government recognised that some alteration was required in this respect. The matter was now under consideration, but the Government had not yet decided whether it should be done by regulation or by an amendment to the act. Replying to Mr Morrison, as to what concessions, if any, the Government are offering to Bell and Co. in connection with the establishment of the matchmaking industry in Wellington or iv any other part of New Zealand, The Hon. Mr WARD said the firm had made a request that a certain class of maehiuery which could not be made in the colony should be allowed to come in duty free, in which case a factory which would employ from 80 to 100 haudtt would be established. They were informed that if this machinery could not be made in the colony the usual concession as to the duty would be granted. They were also informed that if the material for making matches (which they requested phould be admitted duty free) could not be manufactured in the colony, the Government would consider whether it could not be placed on the free list.

Replying to Mr W. Hutchison, The Hou. J. M'KENZIE said he was preparing a Libel Bill, which he should do his best to get passed this session. The House would see it was a genuine bill, and he thought it would completely prevent any libel being perpetrated in the future.

Replying to Mr Tanner, The Hon. Mr SEDDON said the reason why a salary of £250 appeared on the Estimates for the Sergeant-at-Arms was owing to a mistake of his own, as he was under the impression that the salary of the previous Sergeant-at-Arms was £250 instead of £200.

Replying to further questions, Ministers stated that it was not possible to deal this session with the question of local government. ■The Amending Municipal Corporations Act Bill will shortly be circulated. The reward offered Sor the total destruction of rabbits on runs will be renewed. The frauking syßtem is to be abolished and a stamp system substituted. No attempt will be made to curtail the powers -of rabbit inspectors. The Government had not .decided whether they would import more stoats and weasels.

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

On the House of Representatives resuming at 7.30 p.m.,

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. The Budget had been received in an unusual way. Hut good wine needed no puffing. He thought the House would agree with him that nothing wa3 attempted to be covered up in the Budget, hut he regretted he could not compliment those who were opposed to the Government on the stand they had taken over bis proposals. He referred to interviews that had taken place betwe-n Sir R. and representatives of the press, and said it was remarkable that Captain Russell had expressed similar opinions to press representatives. He combated several of Sir R. Stout's assertions, and, with respect to his remarks about insurance companies, which were wholly incorrect, he eaid the objt-ct the Government had was to compel these pioplu lo invest in New Zealand securities^ Neither Captain Russell nor Sir R. Stout ha"d put the Financial Statement tairly before the country on this head or with respect to the sinking fund, and the only difference between the position now and in former year?, of which Sir R. Stout had spoken, was that they were then characterised by huge deficits instead of substantial surpluses as at present. Would Sir R Stout deny that the £2,000,000 for the Bank of New Zealand was only a contingent liability ? Why, tbe colony was not called on to pay interest on that amount unless the bank made default. How then could Sir R. Stout inform interviewers that the Government were about to borrow £6,000,000 when £2,000,000 of it were simply guaranteed to the bank, and the shareholders paid interest on it ? He aleo denied that the cheap money scheme was borrowing, and asked bow it cculd possibly be called by that name when the money would be invested in real •t-state under proper conditions, and free from .political control P How also cculd the sum to be appropriated for the purchase c-f land bo called borrowing ? He had evi-ry coufMenoe that his colleague, the Minister for Lands would tpecd tbe money judiciously. The propcsil to institute colonial consols he contended was a safe and sound one. The Government were not blmd to the fact that it might divert money from other channels, and if it were found that this system worked prejudicially in any way, the Government were prepared to exercise their judgment and to regulate the scheme accordingly. They would simply watch results, and be guided by the result of experience, which was surely only fair and reasonable. As to their proposals* regarding private savings banks, he might point out that these proposals were not at all compulsory. It had been found that during tbe Jast 12 months some of these savings banks were not in as good a condition as they ou<;ht to be. People had made representations to the Government that some of these savings banks should be absorbed, and the whole object the Government had in view was the safety of the public. It was also a voluntary proposal, and if the Bavings banks did'not like to take advantage of the offer there was no compulsion in the matter. If there was any proposal of borrowing at all in the Budget it was merely for the sum of £250,000 for opening up lands for settlement. There were at present half a million acres of Native lands available for settlement, the whole of whichshould beroaded before settlement could proceed ou them, and this £250,000 was necesnary to enable them to do this. He next referred to the statements 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 vigour than they had been hitherto carried on. If Dr Newman was sincere in the views he then expressed, he (Mr Ward) now invited him to support the Government in a reasonable proposal to borrow £250,000 and not two millions. He then quoted a speech made by Mr Barnshaw in a previous session, and asked if that hon. gentleman was at all consistent how could ho possibly oppose the present Budget which was expressly devised to assist country settlers ? Those members who had in effect supported the policy of the Government before that policy was brought down should not now revile them for making the proposals contained in the Budget. The policy of the Opposition was to put town against 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. E. MITCHELSON said the course taken by the Hon. Mr Ward that night was the most extraordinary one ever taken by him or any other Treasurer in any colouy, and he felt sure the public of New Zealand would not consider he was entitled to auy particular credit for it. Notwithstanding all the flapdoodle they had just heard from Mr Ward, it was not going to prevent him from speaking on the Budget proposals He 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, who rnu3t now be convinced that the three years' sham which they had perpetrated on the colony was about to be exposed at last. The Treasurer had stated his Budget challenged criticiMn, but he (Mr Mitchelson) thought when the Opposition had done with the Statement it would be seen that the criuciisui was effective. The only pleasing statement in the Budget was that where it stated that there was a saving of revenue over expenditure of £74,000 for the year. Mr Ward had stated the gross surplus to be £290,000, but he held that any busioehß man would deduct his liabilities betore makit g a surplus. The Treasurer had not done this, and as thi-re were liabilities due at the end of tbe fiuaocial year of £105,000 the net surplus avaiUblo wniouly £184,000, au«i not £290,000 as claimed by the Trea,u er. He (Mr Mitchelsoo) estimated that the amount of outstanding Treasury hills at present was ono million of money, and if that were correct the Treasurer's finance < iiibtead ot bjiug stroug, as he claimed for it, was most excessively weak. He then referred to the public works fund, and said the total amount expended on public works out uf the consolidated funds by the present Government was £2,150,000, as against £1,660,000 spent by the Atkinson Government out of the same fund for three years of office. As regarded the question of the public debt, they heard all round that the debt had decreased instead of being increased. He quoted from the late speech of Mr Ward at Oatnaru to the effect that the debt was decreasing, which he said was wilfully misleading. The Budget itself showed a large increase iv the public debt. He proceeded to show that on the 31st March 1891 the net public debt wav £37,343,380, whereas on the 31st March 1894 the net debt amounted to £38,874,491, or an increase of £1,531,183, which was nob a bad record for a professedly non-borrowing Govtrument during three years tenure of office. He did not want the House to rely solely on his figures, as any member could find them for himself in the tables attached to the Financial Statement. The present Government had repeatedly stated that, in using the sinking fund for carrying on public works, they were merely following the example of Sir H. Atkinson. Now be (Mr Mitchelson) had looked up the returns and he found that during Sir H. Atkinson's last Administration £400,000 of sinking fund had been spent in redeeming debentures under the act of 1884. He complained that Opposition members could not ob'a'n returns from Ministers which were absolutely required by law, and paid the refusal of the Goverpment to furnish returns to the House was received by Government supporters with laughter instead of insisting on Ministers supplying such necessary information. They heard a great deal about the wonderful success that followed the administration of the present Minister for Lands, but he should prove by the tablea supplied by Ministers themselves that th« late Minister for Lands could show a better record iv this respect. Toe total number of people placed on the land during the last three years was 6696, or excluding special settlement associations aud small grazing rune, 5312. The total number during the three years of Sir H. Atkiuaon's Admiuibtratiun was 6307, and, excluding ppecio.l settlement associations and small grazing runs, 5891 ; so that during the Atkiufcon regime there were actually 579 more people puto i the land than during the lastfiree years of the prebeut Government Referring to the Bank ot New Zealand, he asserted th>; colony could not relieve itself of the liability of two millions guaranteed to the bank notwithstanding what the Treasurer said on that head. He considered the position of the Assets Company was largely due to the legislation of the present Government, which prevented the company from selling its land. With respect to the Native land proposals, he denied that the Natives agreed to tho proposals of the Government. His opinion was that the best way to do, seeing they could not resume the preemptive right, was to individualise Native titles to land, and that auy land to be sold should be disposed of un 'er the ha.- d Act through wa*tj land boards H» totally disagreed with the proposal in the Budget to give financial aid to settlers, and the manner in which it was proposed to raise the money used would entail a loss of £30,000 to £35,000 in every million raised. The cheap money scheme of the Government would also materially interfere with the lending operatioi.s of the Government Life Insurance and Publ'c Trust departments. On the whole the proposal?, in his opinion, were fraught with very great danger. The Treasurer himself had shown by tha Budget that there was no necessity for raising this money, as he had stated his belief that money would shortly be plentiful. As to the Savings Bank proposals, he failed to see why the Government should take the savings of banks like the Auckland Pavings Bank. Referring to Ministers' travelling expenses, he thought there would not be so much fault found with them when they were on public business ; but he strongly objected to surh large expenses, whr u they were on election business especially in the matter of sending lengthy telegrams— a practice which was followed by the prepeut Government more than any other previous G .vernraent. He objected also to the house allowances, ar>d said he should be prepared to vote for an increase to Ministers' salaries if they were not sufficient. He again asserted that many of the Ministerial propoeals were borrowing, and nothing more. Mr TANNER aaid Mr Mitcbelsou's speech was decidedly of a pessimistic character, and he had looked at the Budget proposals with green spectacles. His (Mr Tanner's) opinion was that the proposals of the Government embodied a bold and comprehensive policy. He strongly supported those proposals, and hoped to see many of them carried into effect very shortly. It was one of the most gratify

ing features of public finance that the weight of debt per head [upon the people of the colony was decreasing. While he deprecated any attempt to raise money in London for general purposes, it was impossible to chut one's eyes to the state of the colony at the present time in the financial world. They must stimulate private enterprises, and the Colonial Treasurer's proposals had, he asserted, been received with confidence throughout the whole country. He felt sure there were sufficient members in the House who could shape the Government proposals in such a manner as to make them generally acceptable. He warmly approved of the land settlement scheme as sketched in the Budget, and said it could not pessibly be carried out without money being voted for it.

Sir R. STOUT said he had listened to several financial debates, but this was the most extraordinary one he had yet heard. He was aware they could not possibly discuss important proposals like those in 60 minutes, and he thought this was a curious phase of Liberalism. He said he sincerely sympathised with the Colonial Treasurer in not having a single colleague on the Treasury benches to assist him in dealing with those proposals. He could not think it was want of courtesy that induced Ministers to depart from the usual custom of putting up a Minister to reply to an Opposition leader. No, it was not want of courtesy, but want of ability that induced them to put Mr Tanner up to reply to Mr Mitchelson's criticism. After referring to the position of the public debt at some length, he asserted that there was no surplus at all this year without borrowing, and if there had been no borrowing there would have been a deficit instead of a surplus as claimed by the Treasurer. He aUo asserted that there was an increase in interest and sinking fund of £80.000, and although the tables furnished would lead them to suppose there had been a saving, they had not saved a single penny piece. So that the tables were absolutely misleading. Referring to the policy of the Budget, he said there was nothing on the fivco of it but borrowing It was also unnnal borrowing. In addition to £2,250,000 they would have lo borrow for naval and military settlers and loans to loc<il bodies. His opinion was that the borrowing this year altogether amounted to nearly £3,000,000, and ho asserted that no Ministry ever before in the colony had £3,000,000 ot borrowed money in one year. They were also to be asked to sanction £2,750,0C0 a year, so that the whole Budget was an audacious borrowing policy. They were therefore placing this fair colony under the heel of debenture-holders in London, and if this scheme was carried out they would be going to the London money-lenders every year for from £2,000,000 to £2,750,000 a year. Liberal members in the House were, he asserted, not allowed a soul of their own. They were driven into the lobbies night after night, without being allowed to fchink for themselves in the slightest degree The Liberal programme was now to be •' spoils to the victors " But they could not get pure administration if they had "ppoils to the victors." He assorted that before the late Railway Commissioners were appointed, the Railway Union in Christchurch met the members of the Ministry and dictated to them who were to be appointed, and who were to be afterwards dismissed. If the Premier denied that, let him setup acomroitee to investigate what he asserted. He (Sir R. Stout) believed that the information at his command was absolutely true, and it proved that " spoils to the victors" was the policy of the present Government. He did not object to the State lending money to farmers if it were only on mortgage, and if thuy had the money to lend they could have made the Government Life Insurance and Public Trustee departments and Ravings banks a lending board for this purpose without going to foreign bondholders at all. That would be a statesmanlike proposal, and not like those in the Budget. There was no such thing as self-reliance in the Government policy which would cast self-reliance to the winds. Where was it to end if they borrowed £2,750,000 a year from foreign bondholders ? It simply means ruin for themselves and their children. If they took iv the contingent liabilities the c lony in the next 18 months would be six millions of money in debt. He agreed that they needed money, but if they were only prudent and careful there was no occasion whatever to go to the London marktt for money. If farmers wore to have monr-y why should not manufacturers have it also ? How was a line to be drawn ? If the State were to lend money to its people where was the line to be drawn. If the State were to have sole control of the monetary affairs (>f the coloiiy they would then have a L'ber 1 patty afraid to f-xpress their opioion. They would have Ministers threatening a dissolutiou ai.d Hooding the Upper Chamber bb uc<iu-eu c<iu-e the Land B 11 was in danger, wbuih was a most improper and unconstitutional proceeding He K av e the Government every credit for good intention*, but he thought tho House should save them from themselves, and save them from whut he believed would be the greatest blunder the colony had ever committed.

The Hon. Mr SEDDON said be was labouring under considerable d'fficuUy in following the cold blooded speech of the Reiner member for Wellington, but he thought he would be doing wrong if he allowed such a speech to go without reply from him If that speech were made by the Leader of the Opposition he could understand if, but he could uot understand the action of one who should be helping them to fight the battles cf the people against those who, if they had the opportunity would undo a' l that had been done for the last four years. Sir R. Stout had expressed commiseration with Mr Ward for not having a Minister to assist him, but he pointed out that Sir J Vngel had Sir R Stout to assist him on the Government and a nice mess they had made of it. He referred to the Stout-Vogel Administration, and said that when that Government had failed to make provision to meet our payments in London Sir H. Atkinson was compelled to borrow £700,000 from the Colonial Bank so as to save the colony from making default Sir R. Stout had said this Budget was an entirely now departure, but he (Mr Seddon) asserted that it was a continuation of the policy carried on by the Government since 1891. It was no new thing to assist local bodies or to purchase Native lands, and if Sir R. Stout was true to his public utterances he should support the Government in buying back the pre-emptive rigbt and in upholding the Treaty of Wairangi. The amount asked for under this head was not ah all oppressive, and if the same party waa at their back in Mr Ballanco's time as supported them to-day the amount «et apart for Native land purchase in 1891 would have been as large as was now a=ked for. He contended that the Government had been self-reliant and had not borrowed money, and the present proposal's were not a borrowing policy. He could not express the horror he felt when Sir R. Stout had Btated that the colony would be under the heel of foreigu money-lenders. He was astonished to hear the hon. gentleman express himself in that manner. It was not foreign r'ebenture-holders but loan companies and mortgagees thab had been the curse of the farmers of this colony, and the Government intended to remove that state of things by fcheir proposals. He resented Sir R. Stout's remarks

that the Liberal party were driven like dumb dogs in the House, but he warned that hou. gentleman that those dogs, as he called them, would bark and bire for the people of the country. Sir R. Stout had made a grave charge against one of the Ministers respecting the appointment of Railway Commissioners. There was not a single name submitted to the Cabinet, so that his charge was absolutely without foundation. He asked Sir R. Stout to be more careful in making such charges. He would now tell the House that he had never spoken three words in his life to the gentleman from the West Coast, who had been appointed one of the commissioners, but the Government had heard of that gentleman's capabilities, and he was proud of the action of the Government in appointing him. The opinion was that Sir R. Stout's action towards the Budget proposals was simply to cause a split in the Liberal party. As to Sir R. Stout's statement respecting* Treasury bills, he asserted there were £523,000 Imperial guaranteed debentures still untouched. He was surprised to hear Sir R. Stout refer to the Government Insurance department, as his Government had lent £200,000 out of those funds— £l62,ooo in one year. He denied that the Budget proposals would injure that department, but the Government were determined that New Zealand should not be a happy hunting ground for other insurance companies. As the Treasurer had stated, they did not want the money of those companies but they did want New Zealand securities. He claimed that in establishing New Zealand consols there was no departure from a non-borrowing or self-reliant policy. Where was the danger of lending money to farmers when the Public Trust Office had already lent £608,000, and no less than £544,948 was lent to local bodies while the Stout-Vogel Government was in office ? It was equally safe for the Government to lend money to farmers direct at a less rate of interest. It was intended with this money to relieve small settlers and Crown tenants and holders of leases. He felt sad when Sir R. Stout said we could not afford to spend more than £200,000 on roads, but was he prepared to take the responsibility of saying to those men working on roads that they were to have no more work ? The Government would be wanting in their duty to the colony if they did not make provision for reproductive works. He defended the Hon. Mr M'Kenzie's attitude over the Land for Settlements Bill, which contained no new principle, and the Minister for Lands should be commended instead of blamed for striving to get a bill passed which was so evidently desired by the people. Sir R. STOUT rose to a personal explanation. He said he was prepared to name the Ministers who saw the Railway Union in Christchurch respecting the appointment of the new Railway Commissioners. The Hon. Mr SEDDON : Name them Sir R. STOUT: One, I believe, was the Minister for Education, and the other one, I think, was the Premier.

The Hon. Mr SEDDON denied that he had seen the men on the subject at all.

The Hon. Mr REEVES admitted he had talked with the men on the matter, and had expressed the opinion that there would have to be a change in the commissioners, but the Premier had nothing to say to the men. Mr E. M. SMITH moved the adjournment of the debate. — Agreed to. THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS ONOE MORE.

This afternoon Sir R. Stout had occasion fco recommend that a certain sum be placed on the Supplementary Estimates, so that the matter may be discussed. Unto which Mr Seddon answered, with some loftiness, " Anything we put on these Estimates we shall ask the House to carry." Pausing here a moment to catch a soft interjection from Patea Hutchison, " The Sergeant-at-Arms, for instance ? " '• Not quite," answered the hon. gentleman. " We intend to give an explanation of that presently." Here came a chuckle from certain incredulous persons. A little later the explanation came. " The increase which appeared on the Estimates was," said Mr Seddon, •• the fault of the secretary to the Treasury acting upon his (the Premier's) misapprehension that the original salary was £250 instead of £200." The Premier proceeded to say that the mistake was a very unfortunate one for him, and the House here audibly smiling, he, with much dignity, wished to know if hon. members supposed he would stand in his place in that House and make an explanation that was not in accordance with fact. No man venturing to say that he did not resemble the immortal Washington in this regard, the incident closed.

NORTH ISLAND TRUNK RAILWAY.

The Premier was asked by the Hon. B. Mitchelson whether the Government will allot a portion of the £250,000 that it is proposed to transfer from the consolidated fund to the public works fund (to Part II) in order that further progress may be made in the construction of the North Island Main Trunk railway. The Premier said that he was hoping that Mr Mitchelson would have said that he intended to support the Government's proposal with reference to this £250,000. However, he (the Premier) did not know how the House would treat the matter, and it was unfair to ask him to count his chickens before they were hatched. If the House agreed to the Government's proposal he would take Mr Mitchelsou's suggestion into consideration.

JOTTINGS. Oq the division (in the Laud for Settlements Bill, Mr Masst-y and sevsial others walked out because the division was called for by Mr O'Regan and others, who openly expressed their desire to abolish the freehold altogether. Mr Russell has given notice that in Committee he will move certain amendments to the Land for Settlements Bill.

Petitions from temperance societies praying for the amendment of the liquor law btill continue to come in freely.

Mr M'Guire's suggestion that the duty should be taken off salt in the interest of manufacturers of butter and cheese haß been referred to the Tariff Committee.

The Postmaster-general says the franking system is completely overgrown and considerably abused. The Government intend to abolish the system altogether.

The whole question of old solders' claims is about to be considered by the Cabinet.

Mr Duthie says that it is a remarkable fact that few people are inclined to buy land. People will not settle here who have anything to lose. The Land for Settlements Bill and such legislation, says Mr Duthie, discourages landowner? from improving their properties — not for the purpose of creating an unemployed clas3, but because of the feeling of insecurity that prevails.

Dr Newman states that there is nothing new in the principle of the Land Bill : 2000 jears ago a Roman Minister for Lands had moved in the same direction. " Did he carry his measure?" asked Mr Carnoross. "Yes," was the smart reply ; " because he had a genuine surplus, and not a paper one."

The unauthorised expenditure account, laid upon the table this evening, includes : House allowance to Hon. J. Carroll, £100 ; travelling allowances to Ministers in excess of the £1000

chargod under "The Ministers' S.ila-i ■> and Allowances Act 1887," £122 15*; expenses in connection with the licensing elections, £873.