TIE FINANCIAL ADVISER ITEM.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12405, 29 December 1909, Page 8

TIE FINANCIAL ADVISER ITEM.

On the. motion to go into Committee of Supply, Mr Massey/then brought up the question of the reinstatement of the vote of £400 for a financial Adviser in London, which was placed on the supplementary estimates, and gave rise to the stonewall before Christmas. He contended that it was not competent to deal again during the same session with the question. A long discussion on points of order raised by Mr Massey as to the competence of reinstating the vote already rejected ensued, and when the Honse ultimately went into Committee Mr Massey raised the questions: (1) Whether the item under consideration, having been struck out of the_ general estimates, could be reinstated in the general estimates without these being re-com-mitted; and (2) whether the said item comes under the scope of items that may be placed in supplementary estimates. .

The Chairman ruled on the first point that while Mr Massey was right in regard to the committal, the . procedure of the Premier was authorised by May as being an occasion for fresh expenditure.

In regard to the second point, the Chairman, ruled that the appropriation must ba placed on the estimates, not being a grant made by the Statute. The Speaker confirmed the Chairman's ruling. Committee of Supply resumed the discussion of the renewed ote of £400 for a Financial Adviser in London.

The Premier said the most juvenile member could pursue a course such as that pursued by the Leader of the Opposition. No judgment was required for it. nor ability. All that was necessary was to keep on haranguing, and that Avas what was being done. If members wanted to do 15 miles of walking into lobbies on 399 amendments, he was willing' to take his chare. Mr Massey repeated the offer previously made by the Opposition. He supposed they would be beaten again, but the Opposition had the country behind them.

The Premier said he did not intend to ' agree with the proposals for settlement. The matter would have to be settled on the floor of the House.

Messrs Russell, Poole, and Clarke, •who voted "gainst tlte item on Friday, announced t'leir intention to now vote for it, as they .had- voted originally under misapprehension. Mr Taylor pointed to the evils of party government, which lead to the present position and the necessity of certain members being placed in the awkward position of reversing their votes. If ho were a party leader he would do what was done in America. He would give the spoils to his party. Referring to the Opposition papers, he said they misreported, they distorted, and they lied. They advocated political purity when it suited them. They were tho meanest political scavengers. Invidentally he pointed to the importonce of having an elective executive., which would then represent the will of Parliament.

Sir Joseph Ward said if the Leaders of the Opposition were sincere in their assertion that they were willing to meet liabilities incurred, they would not object to the vote being passed. Yet they attempted to block the reconsideration of the item. He could only consider the Opposition as having personal grounds. Mr Massey: You have no right to fciiv "hat. The Premier: T do. After desultory discussion, lasting till 1J .30 Mr Mnssey said the debate was not altogether a waste of time, as it served it) t.^noh new members a good deal jibor.u f!>o nroeeciur-' of the House and finnnviM matte", s. The whole point was whether :t was necessary to have a financial adviser in London. The Prime Minister thought it was. He (Mr Massev) did not sea any necessity for it. In the case of Sir Julius Vogel, who had been given a salary for similar work. lie had supported this out of consideration for Sir Julius Vogel, but r.bjecte-1 to Mr Reeves being paid for carrying out duties as financial adviser, r.ot on personal grounds, but because Mr Reeves held other positions. One particular reason why Mr Reeves should pot occupy the position referred to was that lie was a director of the National Bank.

Mr Anderson said he Lad personal oxperier.ee of Mr Reeves as an employer, and could say that the latter nad never been considered a financial expert. It was strange that if, as Sir J. G. Ward said, Mr Reeves, while Hijlli Commissioner, had a, financial adviser to assist him. that he slionkl now be in a position to act as financial adviser to the Government on his own account.