HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Press, Volume L, Issue 8557, 10 August 1893, Page 5

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

W_D_7__bAT, Atf-TjlH? 6

42..ERN00N *_UTTNG> The House met at 2.30 p.m. QUESTIOS3.

Replying to Mr Meredith, whethe* thl Minister for Lands would purchase, u___-f the Land for Settlement Act, 1892, a portion of the Waitohi Flat from the Midland Railway Company, with the view of affordr ing on opportunity to the settlers of the adjacent Hurunui Peaks Village Settlement to enlarge their small holdings. Mr McKENZIE said the Midland Railway Company refused to sell the land and the Government had no power to force them to do so. He hoped, however, to bring in a Bill to enable the Government to acquire land from the Midland-Railway Company. "

Replying to Mr Meredith, whether it waJ_ correct'that the Midland Railway Company had disposed of 80,000 acres of land c* thereabouts in one block, to one person, of what is known as the Horsley Downs ran, and if so did "the Government approve of alienation, „___ Mr McKENZIE said four blocks of 76,70£. acres had been leased, but the Government h&d no knowledge of blocks that had been sold. Even if they had, they had no power to prevent the Company from selling the

land.

Replying to Mr O'Oonor, whether the Government would this session introduce a measure to provide for the exemption of improvements from local rates up to £250, subject to the assent of a majority of ratepayers, . Mr SEDDON said the Rating Acta Amendment BHI now "before the House gave local bodies an opportunity of doing what was asked for in the question, if they thought it desirable. COVEENMJENT LICENSING 81T.!.. Mr SEDDON introduced the Aicobolie Liquors Control BilL Mr ROLLESTON asked the Premier t* give the House some indication of the provisions of this Bill, which was of such large importance at the present tithe. ; Mr SEDDON said, as He had before stated, he hoped the Bill would be found te be fair and reasonable, and such as to give satisfaction to all parties. The Bill weald be shortly circulated. 1? UELIC WORKS gSATEXtST. Replying to Mr Mitchelscn, __ir SEbDON said the Public Works Statement would be brought down as soon as certain necessary legislation was passed by the House. He though s it unprecedented that the Public Works Statement should be brought down at this stage of the session and before the G__ecol __.-_-.t-i were passed. Mr MITCHELSON said it was not at all an unprecedented course that the Opposition were urging in this matter. It was unprecedented that the Public Works Estimates, which dealt so largely wita consolidated revenue as was proMsed this session, should not be before the House at a much earlier period cf the _e_*u_- t__m the present. .. l&C. HUTCHISON, moved ment of the House. He eonte-ded[th*** the Public Works Estimates were down it would not delay business m the fcasfc or more than the general E-tunatea delayed bn_ri_ess. . Mr SEDDON said Ms experience was that after the Public Works Estimates were brought down members wanted to get aw*y to their homes as quickly as possible. If the Opposition refused to go on with the general Estimates or obstructed them they would hove to take the responsibility attach* ing to that coarse. He could promise the House that the Public Works Statement would be brought down this session earlier than usual. After further discussion the motion for* adjournment was lost. -.•- . . > . .Tim BAB—I 7 gRSTP. . Mr BUC3-LAND moved—" That in tbe opinion of the House the time has arrived when, with the view of effectively coping i with the rabbit pest, the Rabbit laspsctora

should be abolished, and the whole system of dealing with the question be reorganised." He said he had been repeatedly told that if the Rabbit Inspectors were abolished the rabbits would disappear, and he strongly urged the necessity of something being speedily done to grapple with the pest, which was so injurious to the colony. Mr VALEN'i "STE thought this was one of the most important questions that could engage the attention of the House. He felt sure that the colony must be losing millions a year owing to this fearful pest. They were told by the present Minister of Lands, when he took office, that he was going to effect great improvements in this direction, and that his predecessor had greatly neglected it, but he (Mr Valentine) had yet to learn that Mr McKenzie had mado any improvement at all in coping with the rabbit pest, in fact the country was never in such a bad condition as it was at present owing to this destructive pest. He urged that the matter should be left to the local bodies to deal with, and he thought by that means a good deal of the irritating inspection they now experienced would be removed.

Mr ROLLESTON suggested that this question should be brought before the joint Stock Committee, who would take evidence on it. He thought it would be an extremely good thing if they got evidence from Marlborough as to the abolition of the Board there; also the evidence of Mr Lance, whioh would be very valuable. He hoped Mr McKenzie would assure the House that he would have evidence taken on this subject, and that it would be brought before the Stock Committee.

Mr RHODES was hardly prepared to support the motion until they had more evidence on it.

Mr RICHARDSON said the administration of the Rabbit Act for the last three years had been a miserable failure, and he asserted that he had lately seen rabbits in the South Island in far greater numbers than had been the case for eight or nine years past. They had also greatly increased in tbe North Island. He did not altogether agree that the matter should be put under local control, and complained that the factories were abolished just as they were getting useful, as the factories were more effectual in dealing with the rabbit pest than poison. Mr HOGG contended that the rabbit pest was rapidly disappearing wherever there was good settlement going on and there was not nearly so much friction between Inspectors and settlers as was formerly the cose.

Mr BUCHANAN thought the Inspectors had done their work well on the whole, and it would be a great mistake to abolish them.

Mr J. McKENZIE agreed with Mr Buchanan's view, and said that hon. gentleman bad spoken with some. knowledge of the matter, and was prepared to do justice to the Department. If Mr Buckland could only showony.way to the colony by which the rabbit pest could be got rid of he would be the biggest man .in the Southern Hemisphere. He felt sure the sensible men of the House would not support the proposal to abolish the rabbit inspectors for some vague notion of the mover's. He denied that the rabbits were becoming more numerous, althbugh he was not prepared to say they had not got to places where they were not before. There were, however, negligent people in every part of the colony, and if the inspectors did their duty these sie'gligent people would be the first to ■ cry out. His department had done its best to cope with the rabbit pest, and they had given the Marlborough Board every opportunity to do fair and honest work, but having travelled over the colony he could say he did not see any country so ravaged by rabbits as that under the control of this Board. If the joint Stock Committee could point out to him any way by whioh he could Improve the administration of the Rabbit Department he would gladly accept their advice, and if it could be improved he would be very glad to improve it. He asked every member of the.'House to assist him in this matter. He deprecated further action being taken _fi£--this question at present, and said the motion should not be pressed. He should act on Mr Rolleston's suggestion and refer the whole matter to the Joint Stock Committee.

Sir J. not agree that the rabbit f_-CtGries:vg l "WY"* , s, all diminish the number of rabbits. *_«nv«9glad to hear the Minister speak in the earnest moaner he had -one, and ho had no doubt he had done his best in the matter. Still, the rabbit pest W*», greatly increasing in South Canterbury. HjMfhoped before the session was over thatVobbib fencing would be declared a legal fence, so that a man could compel lis neighbour to share the cost of such a fence, and he saw no reason indeed why the Crown should not in some cases pay half the cost of the. fence. As to the proposal to this question from the control of the Government, he could not agree with that, as it was essentially one that should remain With the General Government; but he would 'remind the Minister that no energy should fee'spared in averting this great evil. Mr MEREDITH thought Mr Buckland was to be commended for bringing forward 'this motion. Although he could not support it, he approved of the proposal to refer the matter to the joint Stock Committee. Mr DUNCAN thought the Government Would have to grapple.with this question seriously as it was a great evil. : Captain RUSSELL thought they were ■torting on the wrong principle altogether. Owners of property should protect their own property and the Government could assist them. Tbe Government could not do everything, all they could do was to organise a system by which the rabbit nuisance could be checked. He instanced the case of Hawke's Bay, where a Rabbit Board had been formed long before Boards were talked of in the House, and without cotning to the Government for any assis-tance,-the settlers there, by voluntary contributions, had constructed a fence and kept Hawke's Bay free from rabbits for the last fifteen years. That was done without any assistance from the Government, - but by the efforts of the settlers themselves. The only possible way of keeping down the rabbits was, in his opinion, by putting the responsibility on the owners of property and by the Government assisting by proper inspection, Mr TAYLOR said the best way to put down the rabbit pest was to put people on the land instead of sheep. Mr MACKENZIE (Ciutha) thought there frere enough people in the colony at present and what they should do was to make those who; were, contented and prosperous. He said in the South Island rabbits were a great pest, but the farmers were doing their utmost to keep the pest in check. He should like to see some other trial of coping with the p?st made, but he was not prepared to say what change should be made. Mr FERGUS said he hod failed as yet to bear any one make a practical suggestion as to coping, with the rabbit pest. He admitted that the Minister was doing his best in:the matter, but there was no Depart ment more cursed than the Rabbit Department. They had heard Mr Hogg andMr Taylor speak of putting men on the land instead of sheep, but he asserted that where settlement was most dense there the rabbits were thickest, because the settlers wanted the Government to keep them, and did nothing to help themselves. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 p.m. adjournment.

EVENING SITTING. , Q-be House resumed at 7.30 p.m.

UC-N-RTO ACT AMSXDMXKT BILL. ' Sir R. STOUT moved that the House go into committee on the Licensing Act Amendment BilL He said the Bill gave a alight addition to local and it practically affirmed no new principle. The Premier and the Minister for Lands both voted for the Bill, but it could not be expected that the Cabinet could make it a Ministerial question as it was only on very rare occasions that matters of social reform were mode Ministerial questions. The Premier had said he would introduce a Bill that would satisfy all parties, but he (Sir R. Stout) held that that was impossible. The position now was that if the amount of local control fixed in his Bill were not agreed to, there was no neces- » y t/°*Y brm _ in - "l any Bill at all. If the Government would consent to take up his Bill he should hand it over to them, as be cared aot who carried it, provided the question was dealt with. He would therefore suggest that the Government should allow the Bill to go through Committee, and afterwards they could moke any amendment in i

it they deemed fit The Bill only asked for local control, not prohibition, and the country demanded that the question should be settled. If the Government, therefore, desired to take up this question they should adopt his Bill and make any amendments they thought necessary. He asked the House to deal with this question as with one that would have to be speedily settled.

Mr BUCKLAND opposed the Bill at some length, and said it was only because they were on the eve of a general election that certain lion, gentlemen wished to appear righteous in the eyes of the country. He warned the Premier that he would see some strange developments before the end of the session, both in this Bill and in the Electoral Bill. He contended that they had at present local option in its strongest j form, owing to the electors having it in their own hands to return members who | wonld regulate the liquor traffic. He thought the House should see what Bill the Government would bring down before they gave any support to Sir R Stout's Bill. 1 Mr SEDDON said he had voted for the second reading of the Bill, as he believed reform was necessary in this direction for years past. He had stated that the Government wonld take the feeling of the House on the Bill as an indication of what course they would pursue, and in fulfilment of that promise he had given notice of a Bill that afternoon. Sir R Stout had said it was impossible to please both parties. It would be nearer the mark, aud he (Mr Seddon) held it would not be wise to attempt to do so. Sir R. Stout's Bill was not direct veto, and nothing but that would please the extremists. The Government would not endeavour to meet extreme views, and they did not see their way to take up Sir R. Stout's Bill. It would be very unfair to the House and to the country to spring a surprise on the House to-day by saying that the Government would adopt Sir R. Stout's Bill after promising the House that the Government would bring down their own Bill. Sir R. Stout had said his Bill should go into Committee. He (Mr Seddou) agreed to that course; he also agreed with Sir R. . Stout that the electors wished this question to be settled, and he thought the time was opportune for dealing with it. There was no doubt a general feeling in the colony that an amendment in the licensing law was absolutely necessary. Holding these views the Government felt it would be better to bring in & Bill this session instead of leaving it to the first session of the new Parliament. The public mind was at present comparatively calm on this matter, and he believed if they made an attempt to bring in a reasonable and practicable measure they would succeed. They had to consider the question from a reveuue point of view, however, and when he pointed out that the license fees of the colony alone amounted to £60,000 per annum, it would be seen how much was involved in the question. If Sir R. Stout's Bill were carried there was not a local body in Nelson and Westland but would have to come on the colony for the funds necessary to carry on their functions. It would, therefore, be necessary to give local bodies extra taxing power to make up their funds in some other way. He would suggest that Sir Robert Stout should let the Bill go into Committee, pass one clause and then report progress and wait until the Government Bill came down. If this course were not agreed to he feared there would be a long debate and their time would be better occupied in discussing other Bills on the Order Paper. He held that all reforms were of a gradual character and they must proceed with a certain amount of caution in this matter. He hoped that Sir Robert Stout would agree to the suggestions he had made, and he believed it would meet with the approval of the House. Mr E. M. SMITH also hoped the Premier's suggestion would be adopted, and if not he should move an adjournment and do his best to prevent Sir Robert Stout's Bill from going into Committee. Mr FERGUS thought that Sir-R. Stout might accept the Premier's suggestion to go into Committee, pass one clause of the Bill, and then throw the onus on the Government. --There was no doubt at all that this liquor question must be tackled, but any great chance in this direction should be rought in by the Government of the day. If any motion w&e made for the adjournment of the debate, he should support it. Mr G. HUTCHISON said the Premier voted for the second reading of the Bill last week, whilst now they saw the hon. gentleman trying to give it tbe happy despatch. He should vote for any extension of tbe Erincipie of local option, because he beeved it would result in better accommodation and better control of the traffic.

Mr BLAKE said, as Sir R. Stout had not accepted the Premier's suggestion, he should move—"That the Bill be postponed for a week."

Mr SEDDON asked Mr Blake not to press this proposal. He thought it much better that Sir R. Stout should have an opportunity of accepting the suggestion he had made, and that the Bill should be advanced a stage. Mr BLAKE then withdrew his amendment with the leave of the House.'

Mr FISH thought there could be no question as to the propriety of dropping the Bill, as it <ras very carelessly drawn, aad would not effeot the object Sir R. Stout had in view. The result of carrying the Bill would be that there would hardly be a house in any country district for the accommodation of the public He read out a list of several towns and boroughs in which licensed houses would almost entirely disappear if Sir Robert Stout's Bill were carried, and pointed out that great hardship would ensue as well as the loss of on enormous amount of revenue. He maintained that the Premier had met Sir Robert Stout in a very fair way whioh should be accepted by that hon. gentleman. Mr EARNSHAW said the figures quoted by Mr Fish and Mr Buckland were entirely fallacious as under the Bill no districts in New Zealand would be deprived, ot a license. There was no doubt the . House would have to take sides on this question, and he believed that from the North Cape.to the Bluff every candidate at the; general election would have to say. whether or jnpt he was in favour of allowing the people to decide the liquor question. The whole thing would rest with the people themselves, who would decide whether any licenses should be granted, or whether the number should be reduced.

Mr J. MILLS supported the committal of the Bill, as he recognised that all the power in this direction should be. placed in the hands of the people. He was not, however, a prohibitionist, and he should not like to see a Bill passed which would jeopardise the interests of those engaged in the liquor traffic, but some amendment of the existing law was required. There should, however, be some safeguard, and in Committee he should propose that a second poll should be taken, which was often done in the case of public Companies. By this means they would arrive at the true opinion of the people, as in the case of one poll only the prohibitionists might secure a majority which would not represent the real opinion of the people.

Mr McLEAN agreed with the principle of the Bill, but he thought tbe districts were too small, and if the Bdl got into Committee he should support any proposal for making them larger. Sir R. STOUT in replying regretted that the Premier was not present in the House j when he spoke early in the evening, and he I seemed to nave misunderstood his remarks. | There must always be open questions in I the Cabinet, and they only became public questions when the Government thought the B roper conduct of public business required lem to be treated in that manner. The Government had no right to treat this as a party question, and they should consider their party in the matter. He .submitted that the members of the Government were not bound to be unanimous on the question, "neither were their party. There was no need for any alteration in the licensing law at all, unless the people were allowed to say " License or no license." If the Government were prepared to put the question to people; "Yes" or "No," he would withdraw his Bill. The opponents of the. Bill urged that if the Bill were carried there would be no licenses left. If that were so, what right had Parliament to refuse the will of the people being carried out, as if those members who opposed this Bill were correct there was an absolute majority of the people favourable to no licenses being granted. They wero told if the Bill were carried they would lose £60,000 a year in license fees,.but two and a quarter millions were spent and absolutely wasted every year in the degradation

of the people. H prohibition were granted there would be more labour, more economy, mora health, wealth, and prosperity. The motion for the committal of the Bill was agreed to on the voices. Clause 3, section 45 (of the Licensing Act, 1881) repealed. Mr BUCKLAND asked whether the Premier wonld make any statement. Mr SEDDON said he was perfectly prepared to carry out the promise he made earlier in the evening, and as Sir R Stout asked whether the Government was favourable to referring the matter to the people he would answer in the affirmative.

Sir R. STOUT—By a majority. Mr SEDDON—The hon. gentleman did not say by a majority. He should not agree at present to a bare majority. Mr ALLEN thought the Premier should state exactly what he was prepared to grant. Mr BUCKLAND moved that progress be reported. After some further discussion.

Mr SCOBIE MACKENZIE said the position was that there were two Premiers in the House—a Premier dejure and Premier de facto. He was inclined to support the usurper (Sir R. Stout) aud he saw no reason why that hon. gentleman should not be allowed to go on with his Bill. Mr BUCKLAND moved to strike out the words "whether the number of any such licenses is to be reduced."

Mr DUTHIE hoped progress would be reported on the Bill in face of the Premier's promise to bring down his BilL He objected to going on for an hour or two, and then hearing nothing more of the matter. Sir R STOUT said they would hear of it, if not that night on other occasions. Mr SEDDON said he bad fortified himself since the adjournment, and had been convinced that when Sir R. Stout used the words "License or no license," he had made no condition as to the majority. He then moved that progress be reported, in order. that the House might wait for the Government Bill.

Sit* R. STOUT could not agree to progress being reported, but he would leave it in the hands of the Committee.

The following is the division list :— Ates—3o. Meosrs Blake Messrs McGuire Buckland McGowan Carncross McKenzie, J. Carroll Mills, C. H. Dawson Mitchelson Duncan Pa._ta Duthie Reeves Fish Rhodes CoL Fraser Seddon Messrs Hamlin Shera Hogg Smith, E. M. Kelly, W. Swan Lake Taylor Lawry Thompson, T. Mackintosh Valentine Noes—23. Messrs Allen Messrs McLean Bruce Meredith Buchanan Moore Earnshaw Dr. Newman Fisher Messrs Pin ker ton Sir John Hall .. Rolieston Messrs Hall-Jones Sandford Harkuess Saunders Houston Sir Robert Stout ' Hutchison, Messrs Taipua W. Tanner Joyce Thompson, Ke'lly, J. R. Mackenzie, Willis M. J. S. Wright Mackenzie,!*. Pairs. Ayes. Noes. Captain Russell Messrs Buick Messrs Hutchison Richardson G. Ward Mackenzie Sir J. Hall Fergus

[There is a discrepancy between the pair list and the division list, Mr Scobie Mackenzie being recorded as having voted and paired, but the Government. Whip showed that he was a pair with Mr Ward.] [It will also be seen that there ia a further discrepancy, Sir John Hall's name appearing in the division list as having voted with the "Noes" and as having paired in favour of the **Ayes. , f Mr Seddon's motion was carried by 30 to 28. Progress was reported on the Bill, leave being given to sit again, on Thursday, 17th. WOMEN'S suffrage. On the Women's Suffrage Bill being reached Sir;!J. HALL said he was in some doubt as to whether he should move the second reading of this Bill or not, as the Electoral Bill brought in by the Government contained provision for female franchise. He should, therefore, ask the Premier whether the Government intended to maintain tbe Woman's Franchise clause in the Electoral Bill.

Mr SEDDON said that was a reflection on Government seeing that they had just passed a. Bill through committee which would'shortly be sent to the Legislative Council conferring the franchise on women. Sir J. HALL said that as a large majority of the House had affirmed the cUuse in the Electoral Bill giving the franchise to the women of the colony, he should ask the House to read the Women's Suffrage Bill a second time. He spoke strongly of the necessity of women obtaining the franchise, and said there could be no doubt that a large majority of the electors of the colony was in favour of the movement.

Mr TAYLOR supported the Bill, and said he had always been in favour of it. He thought, however, they should be allowed to stand for election to Parliament if they obtained the franchise. Mr FISH characterised the Bill as a waste of time,- and contended that there was no necessity whatever for its introduction. He stigmatised many of the petitions presented to the House as gigantic frauds. Mr ROLLE3TON hoped there would be a division on the Bill with the idea that it might be seen who were really supporting female franchise. He regretted having to oppose the Bill, but he had always been opposed to it, and had seen no reason to alter his opinion in the matter. Mr BLAKE opposed the Bill, and almost hoped the Electoral Bill would not pass, because it contained the principle of woman franchise.

Mr REEVES could not support the Bill because Sir J. Hall implied that the Government were dishonest in their advocacy of the measure. He accused Mr Rolleston of insincerity over woman's suffrage and direct veto, and said no leader ever so demeaned himself on two important questions as the leader of the Opposition had done. He quite agreed with one or two speakers that this was no time to indulge in argument for or against woman's suffrage. There was no doubt women would have the vote before long, and he believed great good would result from it but he could not see any necessity for passing the present Bill as the House had already affirmed the principle. . Mr MACKENZIE (Ciutha) said they had just seen the Minister for Labour lecturing the leader of the Opposition, but they had dignity on one side, and he would ask the House to say what they had seen on the other. The reason why Mr Rolleston had supported Sir R. Stout in the recent division was because he had no confidence in the sincerity of -the Government and of the Minister for Labour, who was under the influence of a certain ring in the House. He strongly resented Mr Reeves's attack on Mr Rolleston, and considered the Minister for Labour was more likely to wreck the Government than anything else that Ministers could do.

Mr ALLEN said Mr Reeves' remarks unmistakably conveyed the impression that Ministers were going to kill the .-.lectors! Bill in the Upper House, and he wished to give women's franchise a parting kick by opposing Sir J. Hall's BilL Mr Reeves had also stated that the question of women's franchise was settled, but he (Mr Allen) held that it had yet to go through a trying ordeal in the Upper House, and that being so, the Minister for Labour should have supported Sir J. Hall's Bill. Sir JOHN HALL, in replying, referred to Mr Fish's assertion as to the manner in which signatures to the petitions for female franchise were obtained, and characterised them as wild, incorrect, smd misleading. He challenged the hon. gentleman to prove what he stated in that respect. He deprecated Mr Reeves' attack on Mr Rolleston and said that all the leader of the Opposition had done with respect to female franchise had been perfectly open and straightforward. He thought Mr Reeves was not justified in voting against the Bill for the reason he had stated, and thought that if he did so he would live to regret it. The motion was agreed to by 30 to 3. The House rose at 12.49 a. m.