THE COUNCIL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 858, 2 July 1910, Page 3

THE COUNCIL.

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY SPEECHES. ; THE BOOKMAKER CLAUSE. The Legislative Counoil resumed at 2;30 p.m; when the Address-in-R-eply debate was continued.

The Hon. J. T. PAUL, referring to the water-power proposals' of the Government, said he 'was pleased ,to see that the Government intended to reserve to itself the whole of, the .water-power rights of the Dominion;. thus reversing the proposal of 1908 when it was'proposed to give water , rights to private syndicates. . . . ■ It. was gratifying to think the Government was going to eliminate thei. 'bookmaker clause ofthe -Act.-' This clause, was a most-obnoxious one. and he, had opposed it in the Council,: but there were not enough members-of the - Council :of .the same opinion. The' totalisator was made legal on one condition and that was that the bookmaker should be eliminated. .What had been done? The bookmaker had been given a legal status: The prosperity-, of ' the country , was much improved, but prosgerity. as expressed in the/Governor's peech did not- mean much to the manout of work and the casual labourer. He was riot a pessimist, but." it should be recognised that there was still something considerable to do' and we- should 'set about doing it.' ; . There would prob- : ■ ably be..a vigorous controversy on the land question this session. Ho did not know what shape the Bill would take, but he' hoped it. would be on'the traditional lines of the Liberal party and not a back-down on Liberal principles. The problem- at present was how,'to get enough-land for the applicants. The Government must' help ..the back-block' settler who deserved- and should get every, consideration. - '

•Helping the Worker's Wife. Of late years the humanitarian policy of the • Liberal party had not . figured- as it should, . but, the movement to afford relief in proper cases to the homes upon which the burden and expenses of maternity now fall so heavily was- to be commended.. ;The movement was, in his opinion, good statesmanship. , A great deal had been done in regard to.the St. Helens maternity - homes, but this had not solved the problem". Highly-trained nurses had been turned out, ■ but these were; not of much assistance to the working man. The highly-trained nurse would not do any of the- housework, and really a man engaging such a nurse had to get- someone to look after and wait on her. -There were exceptions, but in the main it worked as he stated. AVhat was, wanted, was a Jarpier number of midwives, who would go into, the homes as the old style midlives did. He urged the Government, if the: medical fraternity would not cooperate with them, to appoint State doctors to carry out the scheme. Referring. to the ( proposed, anti-trust legislation, Mr. Paul said lie did not believe that internal trusts could be dealt with .V . legislative enactment. The means of coping effectively with them was by btate ownership. Attempts to suppress; the trusts in. America savoured very much of burlesque.

Labour Laws. ■ Referring to the Osborne case, Mr. jr.atil said h€ .could find no rcasou whv .working men and trade unions, should not be allowed to manage their own affairs, and devote their funds to what purpose they thought fit. He suggested that the' Attorney-General should look into the matter. \ ■

Dr. Findlay: I can only explain the law. I am entirely with you in your contention, but I think the decision of the House of Lords was right. Referring to the Arbitration Act, Mr. Paul said the Court had not been sufficiently sympathetic to the claims of tho workers. Many unions now went before tho Conciliation Commissioner and acceded to arrangements which they would mot have accepted under different conditions. These agreements had - been referred to as triumphs for conciliation. They were not so, as he knew from inside knowledge. In one case, ho believed tho country was very close to an industrial upheaval. The Court had been both unsympathetic and unfair to many of the industrial unions. If tho only reason a nil ion" had for going before the Court for a fresh award was ■the increased cost of living, tho- union had a right to a hearing. ■ If the price of every commodity was increased surely the worker could ask an increased price for tho only commodity he had to sell—his labour. A discussion; as to whether or not the 'Arbitration Act should remain had been set afoot, said Mr. Paul. There was he considered, a class of labour in ..New Zealand vhich had a very limited

experience. This class probably wanted something, and urged a strike. A man who advocated a strike was doing the workers an irreparablo injury. Hundreds of working women would be left without protection if tho Act .were done away with. As far as ho was concerned, he would stand by tho Act until'ho saw something better offered. This country was not a workers' paradise, or an employers' paradise, but the lots of both in New Zealand would, ho was convinced, comparo with the lots of employer or employee in any other country, in tho world. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, ho considered that tho Speech from the Throne gave promise of a fruitful session.

THE LAND QUESTION. Tho Hon. J.ll. SINCLAIR urged the early circulation of Government measures : to facilitate criticism and discussion, which always did good. A Land Bill, in" any programme, said' Mr. Sinclair, was the niain item.' The struggle last year was one of freehold v. leasehold. Jn reference to the lease-in-perpetuity, he contended that the land was, leased only "in name. Having regard for all the conditions, the lands were freehold. The :Jate Sir John M'Kenzie's intention was to give something as near the freehold as possible and still secure the interests of the State and. prevent aggregation. The late Mr.-M'Kenzie had no. objection :to granting the freehold, and simply wished to give a freehold which was in form leasehold. . Aggregation could bo prevented by legal measures nowadays, but this was' not' understood in tho days of Sir John M'Kenzie. The freehold or' leasehold question only touched the real issue. It was not tho ; lessees, but the State who had originally made a bad bargain. • It was a one-sided bargain made in support of a great principle, which, in nis opinion, could not be maintained in any other, way. . The lease-in-perpetuity.'was .wanting in the great essential—revaluation; As great .changes would have taken place by the time the leas.e-in-perpetuity expired as had been tho case since the days of Alfred the Great. Mr. Sinclair hoped that, the national endowments would not be-touched, but would the leaseholders not be doing the best for the State in helping to get the best bargain offering ? •

Readjustment. Leaseholders should do their very best' to bring 'about the most favourable readjustment that was possible. The holders of these lands could not be expected to make heavy concessions to •sentiment. . Although freeholds in substance, these lands nad not been paid for as : freeholds, and were not' taxed as freeholds. Even the right l of'the State,:to control was merely: nominal. If the lands were disposed ■ of a substantial fund could be created for . the. purchase of freeholds. There was" a growing disposition to complete the freeholds of these lands in the House of Representatives. He submitted that it was evident that the oarly settlers pame here": for the freehold because they could_ not get it at Home.' They were promised the freehold before they left Home. In a reference to the national endowment lands, Mr. Sinclair said they were real leases; there was provision for revaluation, 'there was nothing one-sided about'. the contracts which had been entered into, and he did not think any-case had been made out for disturbing them. In the case of a community where the opinion on tenure was si sharply divided, both classes of tenure had to be provided. The great object to <aim • at-.'.was jsettle--inent. - It' was bad business to force leaseholds .'''on;'/freeholders '";a,nd ! freeholds on leaseholders. ■ They should do all they could to meet the leaseholders and the ' freeholders, and make our settlers willing producers.. Everything possible should be-done to bring the settlers into willing touch with the soil. ' >;

The Council adjourned at 4.30 p.m, until Monday afternoon. '