PARLIAMENT.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXVI, Issue 46, 19 November 1909, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15. FACILITATING BUSINESS. The Bouse of Representatives met. in tin afternoon. The Prime Minister' made a statement r yarding the probable duration oi t... with regard to facilitating business. .4e suggested that as the whole of the proposals contained in the Budget would be brought down in separate Bills, the debate on the Budget oe limited to the leaders of both partus. He did not, i>t course ; refer to independent members. His proposal was that if \\"tn the limitation of the debate on the Budget important business should still be unconcluded by December 22 the House should reassemble about February 1 to deal with them, and then adjourn until the following year. The Bills he referred to as the most important were:—The Bill to authorise expenditure on the Dreadnought and Bills dealing with defence, land, native lands, licensing and King Country licensing, hospitals, superannuation and annuities. In reference to the Licensing Bill, in the event of Dominion prohibition being carried it would involve a change in the incidence of taxation, and time would have to be given to adjust this. The Land Bill would be circulated at the end of the week. He hoped members would restrain in view of the near approach of Christmas. Mr W. F. Massey (Leader of the Opposition), while anxious to facilitate the work of the session, said he could not deprive members of their rights by asking them to refrain from speaking on the most important matters mentioned in the Budget. He regretted the necessity to meet again after Christmas, but the House must face it. Mr D. McLaren (Wellington East) considered the changes foreshadowed in the Budget revolutionao-v, and should have been submitted to the country before being presented to Parliament. Members could not do justice to the Budget if there were only two speakers and the rest sat dumb.

The Prime Minister said he only made the suggestion for the House to accept or reject. Mr A. W. Hogg (Masterton) hoped no member would submit to be gagged. The Prime Minister's proposaljjpthe most extraordinary ho had helpl in the House. 'J&W* Mr F. M. B. Fisher OTglngton Central) said we were rapfwy -approaching the stage- at which *% <Bgtfs! r y was ing asked to put up tion without control. ' r , The House decided to give preference to Government business on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The Prime Minister gave notice to sit on Mondays after Monday week. THE DREADNOUGHT.

Replying to Mr A. S. Malcolm, who r asked whether it was true that Govern- 1 ment would receive tenders for the con- r. struction of the Dreadnought, and if so v would the Prime Minister consider the a advisability of leaving that to the Admiralty, Sir J. t>. Ward said the Gov- r ernment had no intention of abrogating a its prerogatives. The Government had nothing to do with the construction, but the House would have to ratify the acceptance of the tender. * HOSPITAL BOARDS. The House went into committee on the Hospital and Charitable Aid Bill. c The House rose at 5.30 p.m. j At the evening sitting, on the motion v that the House go into Committee of j. Supply, J THE BUDGET DEBATE. i Mr W. F. Massey (Leader of the Op- e position) proceeded to criticise the Bud- c get. He said the circumstances under v which the Financial Statement had been r introduced were unusual, and one im- x portant fact in it was that the increased ) debt amounted to £4,500,000. The * present position and outlook were far * from satisfactory, and he could see no t inclination on the part of the Govern- £ ment to taper off. He intended to deal not with details, but with the principles ) underlying the Statement, which was a i comprehensive compromise. He com- 1 pared the Financial Statement to a company prospectus. The Budget pro- ' posals embodied many reforms advo- * cated by the Opposition. The admission { of the Minister e-f Finance that increased taxation was necessary was calcu- * lated to damage the credit of the coun- ■ try. Hardly a class in the country was i allowed to escape. In his opinion the 1 estimates of the amount to be pro- '■ duced by the various items was much ! lower than they were likely to prove. 1 The primage duty was more likely to produce £85,000 than £50,000 as stated. He could not see the necessity for New Zealand being taxed much higher than the Commonwealth States. Customs taxation would fall upon consumers, ■ and the same remark applied to banking taxation. In the face of the taxation proposals they were told the country was never more prosperous. The present state of affairs was due to the Government's failure to introduce proper land legislation. The amount estimated from death duties was just equal to the liabilities in connection with the gift of a warship to the Imperial Government. A huge area of land was lying idle. The arrivals in the Dominion were equalled by the departures, and other unsatisfactory conditions obtained. These would never be removed until a proper, statesmanlike policy was put into operation. He objected to the death duties being applied to widows' estates, which under the proposed legislation would pay death duties twice. The Government asked for borrowing powers to the extent of nearly £8,000,000, which was an enormous amount for a small country like this. He congratulated the Government _ on their conversion to freehold principles, but twitted the Liberal party with willingness to vote for freehold or for leasehold to order. He, however, criticised the Government's proposals in regard to granting the freehold, maintaining that the value depended not on population but on the British market, which if lost would cause values to go down. Ho condemned the system of endowment lands as a gfyastly failure. The endowments in existenoeretarded settlement. He advocated selling the endowments and investing the money in town and suburban lands. The Government had been responsible for criminal waste and 1 negligence in connection with land set--1 tlement. He hoped the Government ■ would repeal the objectionable provi- ' sions of 'the Gaming Act. The Hon. G. Fowlds, replying to Mr Massey's criticism on the borrowing policy, said the House had control over' ' this. The money had gone to assist the ' development of" the country. After • pressing the Government to expend • huge sums for rmblio works the Opposi- < tion accused the Government of steal. ing; thw policy, mA %\m tiinwd round

and condemned that policy when placed on the Statute Book. All the public services required enlarged expenditure with the growth of population and the development of the country. The cause of the higher taxation in the Dominion than in Australia was that the former carried on many more public services than the Commonwealth States. Continuing, Mr Fowlds said the increased taxation was largely due to the increased income accruing from the growing prosperity, for which the" Government deserved thanks instead of condemnation. He defended the death duties, but thought they did not go,far enough. He also defended the changes proposed in the land policy. Mr Jas. Alien (Bruce) denied that the Opposition was opposed to the endowment lands on principle, but to the kind of lands set aside for the purpose oi endowment. The scheme should have been carried out long ago. when proper lands were available, and the old ago pensions fund and education would have derived some benefit therefrom. He characterised the borrowing policy as a scramble, which the Opposition objected to on principle. He taunted Government supporters with slavishly following Ministers and taking their words for gospel. The Ministry was gradually taking away all Parliamentary control from members. Parliament had had no say in presenting the Dreadnought, nor in the Midland railway contract. The predominant note in the Budget was taxation, due to Government extravagance. The cost of railway construction had gone" up £258 per .mile—much higher than that of other States—and the cost of running expenses had also greatly increased. The tendency of the Budget was to increase expenditure and borrowing. The fact that 940 men in the Civil Service had been dismissed was a plain indication that the Civil Service had been overstaffed. He said the Prime Minister had misled the House in regard to the superannuation schemes.

The Hon. J. A. Millar charged Mr Allen with inconsistency in condemning retrenchment and extravagance in one breath. He denied the truth of the statement that members had lost control of Parliament. As to the cost of railways, it should be remembered that this country was very difficult for railway construction. If railways were to be run as thev were in New South Wales it would mean a reduction of the wages of railway servants.

Mr T! E. Taylor (Christchurch North) considered the surrender of the State's interest in renewable 'leases the most ' step since 1890. He considered the clauses in the Budget dealing with freehold utterly disgraceful. He moved as am amendment: "That the House affirm the unsatisfactory nature of the land clauses of the Budget, and that the people are entitled to have an opportunity by means of a referendum to say whether any more Crown land, should be sold, or whether the remnant of lands should be preserved and the annual revenue be available in future to reduce the burdens of taxation." Mr Taylor dramatically condemned the primage duties, which, he said, would ultimately cost the consumers £250,000 a year.

Mr Laurenson moved the adjournment of the debate, and the House rose at 1.30 a.m. WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 17. Tho House of Representatives met in the afternoon. BUDGET DEBATE.

The adjourned debate on tho Financial Statement was resumed by Mr G. Laurenson (Lyttelton), who agreed with the principle embodied in Mr Taylor's amendment, but considered the language in which it was couched an insult to the Government. He believed the referendum a natural corollary of our democratic Government, and it was only a matter of time before the referendum and the initiative were in the hands of the people. He contended that a large majority of the people of the country were against parting with the national estate, but at present there were 53 freeholders in the House and 26 leaseholders. He could not vote for the amendment as phrased, but would vote for the principle contained in it if couched in unobjectionable phraseology. The Speaker, in answer to Mr G. W. Forbes (Hnrunui), ruled this out of order, as ulr Taylor had given notice of a similar motion. Mr Russell (Avon) moved to the same effect as Mr Taylor's amendment —viz., "That the leasehold "'-nuro be maintained as an integnl part of the land tenure of the Dominun tnd thai a referendum be taken U-foic the Budget proposals granting l'ie ris-hl of the freehold are given effect to." He contended that Mr _W. Rolleston's leasehold system, which wa< destroyed bv a clause moved by Mr Scobie McKenzie in 1884 and wn'.r.h gave the tenant the right of x-cupation for 30 years with valuation thereafter, and giving the tenant the rig.it to a leasts from year to year as long as he lived, was tho best system of land tanure ever put into operation in ;he Dominion. Mr Russell advocated restriction of the area of settlement lands to 200 acres first-class and 640 acres The Government's projwsals were unbusinesslike, and would satisfy neither leaseholders nor freeholders. Mr Jas. Craigie (Timaru) secon 1 d u h"» amendment, which was lost by 50 to 17. The following is the division list: Against the amendment: Messrs Allen, Anderson, Baume, Buddo, Buick, Buxton, Carroll, Clark, Dillon, Dive, T. Y. Duncan, J. Duncan, Field, Fowlds, Fraser, Glover, Graham, Guthrie, Hall, Harding, Herdman, Herries, Hine, Jennings, Lang, Macdonald, R. McKenzie, T. Mackenzie, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Millar, Ngata, Newman, Nosworthy, Okey, Parata, Phillips, Poland, R-eid, R<oss Rhodes, Scott, Smith Stallworthy, Rangihirpa, G. M. Thomson, J. C. Thomson, Wilford, and Sir J. G. Ward. For the amendment: Messrs Arnold, Craigie, Davey, Fisher, Forbes, Hanan, Hogan, Laurenson, Luke, McLaren, Poole. Russell, Seddon, Sidey, T. Taylor. Witty, Wright. Pairs: For, Messrs Ell. Stewart, Colvin; against, Messrs Buchanan, Brown, Grecnslade.

Mr F. • M. B. Fisher (Wellington Central), continuing the debate, condemned the taxation proposals. At the evening sitting Mr G. W. Forbes continued the Financial debate. He advocated a referendum on the defence proposals so as to have the goodwill of the people behind the movement. Everv encouragement should bo given to rifl© clubs. Ho expressed disappointment and regret that the freehold fihould be the dominant note in the land tenure. The demand for the freehold in the back-blocks was largely due to the Government's failure to provide good roads and do its share in the partnership between the State and the setl tier. [ Mr A, L, Swdroau (Wellm^too

North) said the policy of the Government on the land question was one of begging for vote,s. He asked why, if the Government when passing the legislation of 1907 believed it to be the best for the country, they abandoned it now. The duty of the Government was to resign. Sir J. G. Ward: The difficulty is that no one on your side of the House is fit to govern tho country.

Mr Herdman retorted that he believed if the country had experience of an Opposition regimo for a few years it would bo a long time before the present Ministry got back. It was an act of treachery for the Government to reverse its policy. In Great Britain the Government, under such circumstances, would resign and submit itself to the electors. The New Zealand Government stuck to office like limpets to , a rock. He believed it would be difficult to ejoct the Ministry even if a vote of no-confidence were carried. Mr Herdman then proceeded to criticise the general administration of tho Government, which he said was not to its crodit Mr H. G. Ell (Christchurch North), replying to Mr Herdman, cited figures to prove that the industries of the Dominion were on the up grade. He defended the departments from the aspersions cast upon them by Mr Herdman, whose charges of corruption and maladministration he said were easily met. Mr W. H. Herries (Tauranga) criticised the Government's loan transactions. Tho loans were, not in a satisfactory position. Debenture stoek was getting ahead of the inscribed stock. No trace of the retrenchment scheme promised by the Government was to be found in the Estimates. Ho was in agreement with the graduated income tax. He hoped when the gaming legislation was before the House the Government would consult men who knew something about the subject. At eleven i>'elock Sir J. G. Ward rose to reply. ■ He said Mr Massey, in referring to the increase of the Public Debt overlooked the assets. He condemned Mr Massey for his one-eided-ness in criticising the Government's proposals and in attempting to misrepresent the true state of affairs. It did not sound well for Mr Herdman—untried and inexperienced in administration—to convey the impression that he could improve on the work of the present Ministry. The Prime Minister characterised Mr Allen's criticism of the Government's finance as contemptible and calculated to mislead the public. That lion, member had deliberately misrepresented facts in connection with the superannuation scheme and had betrayed wilful prejudice regarding public building votes on the Estimates In the matter of retrenchment the Government had not yet completed that ; but were carrying it. out with decency and regard to the interests of those concerned. Tho Opposition's cry that the country was going to the dogs was unjustified and did infinite injury to the country abroad. Ho twitted Mr Allen with charging the Government with extravagance while he asked it to spend large sums on various works, including the Roxburgh and other unnecessary railways, amounting to over £2,500,000 in *.he last fifteen months. He characterised Mr Allen's actions as political hypocrisy. Continuing, Sir J\ G. Ward said Mr Allen, while talking about the increase in tho Estimates this year, had ignored the millions spent in acquiring the Manawatu railway and the fact that many economies were being effected in connection with the public service. Inferring to the debate on tho land question, the Prime Minister said those who had spoken on the subject were not acquainted with the facts, and had been beating the air. Tho 909 years' lease was brought .in to block the freehold. Men who were now praising the lateSir John McKenzie's policy had bitterly opposed him when he was in the House. He denied that tho Government were surrendering the leasehold principle. No such suggestion wa. c made in the Budget. He advised members who had spoken in the debate to wait for further details of the Government's land proposals. He was j amazed at the statement that tho GovI ernment had shown a change of front. i The great majority of members since Mr Ballance's time had been in favor of the optional system. During the time the Government had been in office 33,783 settlers had been settled on the land, aggregating 8,416,000 acres, with an average of 249 acres per head. Yet they were told that the Government were not doing anything to put the people on the land. This could never have been done had not the Government provided capital at a low rate of interest. The primage duties wore designed to provide funds for defence, yet this had been made political capital of. As a result of the financial proposals he believed there would be a surplus of half a million. This would give work to the laboring classes, and reduce the necesity of borrowing.