GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1438, 25 September 1878, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

4K HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, September 24. The House met at 2.30 p.m. importation of horses. Mr Rolleston asked the Government lo remove the restriction placed on the importation of horses. The Premier said the Government hud the matter under consideration, and he hoped to be able to remove the restrictions. BANKS AND COMPANIES DUTIES. Mr Stevens asked for a return showing the amount of duty paid by each hank in the colony on note circulation, also the stamp duty paid by each joint stock company during the year ending 30th June last. The return was laid on the table. first readings.' A Bill for the establishment of a High School tit Wanganui aud the University cf Otago Amendment Bijl were read the first time. IMPREST SUPPLY. The resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply were agreed to. Mr BALLANCE stated that this wmuld probably bo the last time during this session on which an Imprest Supply Bill would be required. The Government would try to remedy the system during the recess. Major

Atkinson had complained that Government had promised a reform, but had been unable to keep their promises. The delay in passing the estimates was unavoidable while such large public works were carried on. Mr Stout thought that if the loan had been floated earlier the session might have begun sooner, and the estimates been pushed through. An alteration in the date of the financial year might meet the difficulty. The further sum of £250,000, in addition to the amount of £750,000 already granted as imprest supply, was granted, and the Bill passed through all its stages. PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS. On the motion tor going into Committee of Supply, Mr Richardson disclaimed any wish that his resolution re the Tapanui railway should be taken as implying any censure upon the Government, He road the resolution passed by the House last session, which he believed was an insufficient authority. The disclaimer expressed by Mr Macandrew that any liability had been incurred was not a sound argument. This contract implied fully as much liability as any other contracts. He hoped the House would accept the resolution in the spirit he offered it, viz., as a safeguard upon the expenditure of the public money. He moved a resolution to the following effect—" That in view of the large expenditure on public works now going on, in future no contract should be entered into by the Government until after the money has been duly appropriated by the House.” Mr Macandrew hoped the House would not agree to the resolution, because it would debar this or any other Government from exercising a wise discretion in promoting the wishes of the House and the prosperity of the country. This railway would be no charge upon either the i evenue or upon the loan funds. The Government was proud of the contract, and the country should be grateful, He foresaw the cavil he would be open to, but had braved it, and would do so again if the same circumstances occurred again. He quoted the San Francisco mail service as a precedent. Mr Bastings defended the action as a wise one. The land, when sold, would realise £BO,OOO more than it would before. The land through which the line passed was of first rate quality. The whole interest to be paid would only amount to £4700. The Ministry deserved the thanks of the country for their action. He accused the newspapers of fabrications and of utter falsehoods in regard to the line, which was not for the benefit of the large land owners, Mr Bowen maintained the question was not whether the line was a good one or not, but whether the House should have the control over the public purse or not. The line adopted was quite different to the one referred to in the resolution passed last session, and the House understood at that time it had committed itself to nothing. It was supposed to be open even for a private company to take up. The line was from Tapanui to Waipahi; but now he believed it left Tapanui a mile on one side. The San Francisco service was not a case in point, Mr Wood thought the matter would come before the House later for its opinion on the railway. It would probably be a useful work, economically undertaken. He would vote against the resolution. Mr Saunders did not doubt Mr Macandrew’s good judgment, especially in one direction. He considered it an excellent piece of good generalship for his own district. He objected to the course pursued. Mr Pyice asserted that appropriation had been made with the full consent of the House, although only land not figures had been set against the appropriation. The resolution implied a severe censure. It was understood that the lands were reserved last session. He gave notice that he would move an amendment to the resolution when the time came. Mr Stout said the spirit of the discussion proved that a provincial jealousy still existed. Canterbury last year had been better treated than Otago, but the Otago members had not complained. It was not true that tenders were accepted before the advertised time for opening the tenders. It was a fact that the tender accepted was about £2OOO below the -engineer’s estimate. The term Waipahi was applied to both the district and to a smalltownship, and the Waipahi-Tapanui line did not mean necessarily to the township. This line was altogether exceptional, and if the principle of construction could be adopted generally a great saving would follow. He admitted the general principle, but the particular case must be judged on its merits, and upon that ground this line could not bo assailed. The land was the best in Otago, was for the benefit of small farmers, and the principle of the contract a good one to apply in other cases. He hoped Mr Richardson would withdraw the motion on the ground of insufficient information on the case being in his hands, and trusted he was satisfied with the explanation given. Mr Eolleston denied this was the case of Canterbury jealousy. The other contracts quoted as precedents contained provisions by which the contracts entered into were not binding until the consent ot the House had been obtained. This contract had been entered into in contempt of the opinion of the House. He quoted “Hansard” to prove that when the lands were reserved they were distinctly set aside, simply as being in the neighborhood of a proposed railway. He was surprised that the Premier could have assented to it. He hoped the House would rise to the occasion, and assert its rights, especially because in this case no pressing necessity for the course pursued had been shown. Mr Murray-Aynslby thought that the resolution distinctly whitewashed the past and only referred to the future. It was the duty of members in the interests of their constituents to defend the privileges of the House. Mr Barton thought a resolution such as that before the House should be justified either by injustice that had boon inflicted or was likely to follow. If no action was taken, successive Governments had agreed to this line. This motion was only a factious one, and was not brought forward with any good object. There was no real substantial basis for this resolution.

Mr Turnbull thought the House was greatly to blame for the undecided position in which this question had been left. He was obliged to the mover for having called attention to the fact. He hoped the resolution would he withdrawn. Mr Carrington thought it could not bo denied that the usual forms had been a little departed from. As the matter had been ventilated, he hoped that, in the future, similar action would not bo taken, and thought the mover might withdraw the resolution, Mr Fitzroy thought the House was now to be asked to legislate for the past, not for the future. This principle, if carried out, would remove any necessity for passing estimates. He would vote for the resolution. Mr McLean rose to speak, more especially on the constitutional point, which others seemed to avoid. The contracts quoted as precedents were all subject to the assent of the House, and even then were greatly cavilled at. No pressure was brought in this case which could excuse the action. On July 29th tenders were laid on the table, and in Dunedin on July 30th they were accepted. Why all this hurry, when the House was sitting, if it was not intended to avoid the voice of the other branch of the Legislature. He approved of the line being opened. He considered it necessary for the House to control the expenditure on railways, but had no wish to reflect ou the past t action of the Government in this case. '' The House adjourned while Mr Montgomery was speaking.

EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30. PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS, Mr Montgomery said the first duty of the Ministry was to uphold the law of the land. He objected to the principle upon which tho Tananui contract hud been let. He hoped the ih'over would withdraw the motion, as it ho d taken a'certain party aspect. Mr Wooxcock said it was absolutely necessary that the House should affirm the principle under which grants were made by the House. It was necessary, because tho Minister for Public Works hid said he would under similar circumstai ces do the same again. Tho resolution was so perfectly fair and temperate, that no party spirit was

apparent in it. Another Ministry might make bad bargains, although this one was both wise and good. The effect of the House putting its veto upon this resolution would be to remove the control of the public expenditure from the hands of the House.

Mr Envoi! said, although the mover said it was not a party morion, yet it had become so. It would be a misfortune if this resolution were pushed to a division, as if it wore not passed it would imply a most dangerous innovation in Parliamentary procedure. Mr Gisborne said that the resolution passed last session was not regarded in the light of an appropriation, nor an authority for any expenditure. He supported the resolution, and thought if it was withdrawn, the same course would not again be taken. Mr Moss hoped the resolution would be withdrawn, because, although it contained nothing objectionable in itself, it was practically a vote of censure on the Government that was not desired.

Mr Delautour said the membars would not be called upon to vote for or against the resolution. The question was whether the House should go into Committee of Supply. The law was already in accordance with the amendment before the House, and it did not require affirmation. He denied the independence of the mover.

Mr Barer hoped there were many members in the House who would vote in accordance with their convictions, and not blindly follow the Government whether they thought it right or wrong. He objected to the party tone of debate adopted by Mr Delatour, who would vole against the resolution in its present form, because it was too wide and would embarrass the Government. He considered the resolution a truism, and when he voted against it he would do so simply because he thought it an inconvenient time to bring it forward.

Major Atkinson said if the Opposition wished to bring forward a resolution of want, of confidence they could have done so, but they did not feel justified in doing so in this case. A contract to meet payments in two years was an actual liability at the present, time. The Government had acted illegally and unlawfully. But was the action justified by the special circumstances of the case. The House had a right to demand information of important public works undertaken during the session, in this case it had been denied. This contract could only be set aside by a breach of public faith. He was sorry that this had been made into a party question, but members on that side of the House, though they would bo very glad to vote upon points of constitutional practice without party spirit, would have to vote according to their consciences, whether against the interest of the Ministry or not. Mr Swanson would vote against the resolution, because he preferred to discuss the estimates rather than waste time in debating abstract questions. A division was taken on the question whether the House should go into Committee of Supply or not, and the House resolved to go into committee by 44 to 30. SUPPLY. For education, several members proposed that some further provision should be made for thinly populated districts than £3 15s for average attendance. Mr Gisborne thought the average cost of educating children in different districts might bo calculated, and grants in aid apportioned accordingly, Mr Bowen proposed special grants for thinly populated districts. The 10s grants for attendance at school had been unfairly distributed in the past. Mr Ballance said many thinly populated districts had been very liberally treated by the Government, and gave many instances in proof. Mr Baeff declared that elections of school committees in Westland was a farce, and criticised the education system generally.