EVENING SITTING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5655, 28 August 1896, Page 4

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.in,

Mr Laavrt continued speaking on the Bill. He combated the statements made by Mr G. Hutchison during the debate, and said that he should support the Bill, as he was elected to support the Seddon Government.

Mr M'Guire considered that the Government had taken all power from the House as far as this financial matter Avas concerned, and the House ought to be very careful in giving them another million of money to spend. He strongly condemned the financial administration of the Government.

Mr O'Regan supported the Bill, although he was not enamoured of any borrowing. He strongly supported tho goldfields vote, and believed there were certain railways in the colony which, if completed, Avould pay handsomely.

Mr Earnshaav thought that no membar from the West Coast could oppose a borrowing policy, and that was, no doubt, the reason why Mr O'Regan advocated plunging the colony into debt. He should oppose this Bill, as he Avas pledged to a non-borrowing 1 policy. Mr B_ M'Kenzie maintained that if the country Avas to go ahead, it was necessary to borrow.

The Hon J. M'Kenzie asked whether it Avas possible for the colony to go on without a loan. He held that it Avas not, bnt asserted that the Government had enough funds to carry on the engagements they had •entered into. . He denied they had departed from the policy of John Ballance. and warned the Opposition that they must feed Mr M'Guire well with roads and bridges, otherwise they could not retain his support. If Mr Ballance was amongst them at tho present time, he would have to take things as he found them, and would have to go for a loan as proposed by the present Government. He asked whether the House Avas prepared to say that there should be no more loans. They could not say they were prepared to open up the country by taxation alone and they Avould be compelled to negotiate for a loan. The people of this colony had a right to have some say in the matter, and he would like to know how many members of the House avouM declare there should be no more borroAving. This question Avas of so much importance that the Government Avould not take the dictum of the House on the matter. They were prepared to go to the people and get their verdict and if members rejected this Bill, they would have to face the music. If the Opposition came on to the Treasury Benches the first thing they Avould have to propose would be a loan. If the colony had to trust to the local bodies to do the Avork of settlement, that work Avould not be done, because the local bodies had not the means to do it. He asked the House if it Avas prepared to go back to the country and ■ advocate that the roads should be taken by the local bodies. He asserted that they were not prepared to take that course. Thej were told that they should not purchase more Native lands, but if they did not do so they would have to repeal the law Avhich provided that the Natives could only sell

to the Government. He asserted that the House had full control of the expenditure, despite what Sir R. Stout had said, and the returns furnished by the Government on the Lands Department supplied every detail of every road constructed by the Government. It was no use members stating that they Avere against the borrowing policy of the Government, whilst they expected roads to be opened up for settlement in various parts of the colony, and he asked how the country could be possibly opened up for settlement unless money were provided for the purpose. Mr Saunders twitted the Minister of Lands with now supporting an absolutely different policy from that advocated by the lato John Ballance, and lie considered no reason had been shown for this change. He did not, however, think that Mr M'Kenzie could be held primarily responsible for this great change, which had been brought about by the Premier and the late Treasurer. They were now asked to commit the colony, not to a million of money, but to five millions, and he (Mr Saunders) considered that there had never been such a complete reversal of policy as was now advocated by this Bill. He considered that the Bill meant the absolute abandonment by the House of all its powers, and it gave the Premier power to raise this money absolutely as he pleased. He condemned the proposal 'for spending .£200,000 on gold-fields, and said that since the' borrowing .policy had been initiated no less than .£900,000 had been spent on water-races and other matters on gold-fields, which did not pay a single penny in return for this enormous expenditure. His opinion was that the colony would have been much better off if it had not borrowed any money at all, and said that the fact of our having to pay .£4500 a day for interest was a fearful drain on the people. They had done far worse with the money they had borrowed than if they had expended it on war, and the colony would never get rid of the debt piled on it by successive Governments. He thought that the Bill should be termed a Bill to ensure reckless expenditure by the Government without any control by the representatives of the people at all. As for his own position, he should have no difficulty in meeting his constituents and telling them that he had supported the policy he was elected to support, but he should be ashamed to follow the Government when they borrowed in the extravagant manner laid down by this Bill.

The Hon J. G. Ward replied to the arguments advanced by Mr Saunders respecting the Bill, and said that Canterbury had not fared badly by tho Government policy. He denied that borrowing this million meant a charge of dSIOO a day, and the more people who arrived in the colony the less the amount of the interest would be. He asked whether those who opposed this Bill were prepared to stop tho roading of lands, the extension of important railways, and the acquisition of native lands and private estates. He thought not, and yet it was impossible to accomplish those objects AA-ifchout a moderate loan such as that proposed by this Bill. He held that every Government would abstain from borrowing as long as they could, but when it was forced on them they must keep pace with the requirements of the colony. He defended the appointment of the AuditorGeneral referred to by Mr Saunders and said that a salary of .£IOOO a year was not too much for a man Avlio controlled an expenditure of four millions a year. If they decreased the earning power of Civil servants they would decrease the earning power of those who were not Civil servants, and that was a most undesirable thing to do. The real issue before the country was whetb.er.tlio country Avas to be progressive or retrogressiA r e, and if the Opposition came into office they, could not possibly. carry on Avithout a loan such as that proposed by this Bill.

Mr Lang urged that the different loan proposals in the Bill should be brought doAvn in separate measures, and he generally criticised the policy and administration of the Government.

Mr Pirani said that he. was opposed root and branch to the loan proposals contained in the Bill. He condemned the Bill as a whole, and criticised at length its details.

Mr Morrison quoted from a speech of Mr Ballance in 1892, in Avhich he made it clear that the Government must raise money within the colony for the purpose of carrying on the progressive policy that had been sketched out. He made this quotation to show that the vieAvs on theborroAVing question that had been ascribed to Mr Ballance by Mr Saunders and other members were not the vieAvs held by the late Premier.

Mr J. W. Kelly challenged the Government to go to the country on this policy, and they would find the people opposed to it. His opinion was that if many more millions were added to the debt of the colony it simply meant repudiation on the part of colonists.

g|Mr Maslin -wished that he ccrald congratulate the Ministry on their proposals, but he thought he would be untrue to the people who sent him there if he supported this Bill. He referred to the fact that the present Ministry had always advocated a policy of non-borrowing, but ever since they had taken office they had adopted a policy of borrowing in every direction. Mr Button, at one o'clock, moved the adjournment of the debate. The Hon R. J. Seddon opposed the adjournment of the debate. Lost by 32 to 18. Mr Hall supported the Bill, and MiGreen opposed it. [Left sitting at 2 a.m.]