THE HOUSE

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2550, 26 August 1915, Page 7

THE HOUSE

■ The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. ._ :i . . Tha Church Property Tnist (Canterbury) Act, 1870, Amendment Bill'(Mr. H. 6. Ell) was read a-third time. Mr. T. M. WILFORD (Hutt) presented a petition signed on behalf of the Petone and Lower. Hiitt Borough. Council?; asking that the passage of the Hutt. Road Bill bo delayed to enable the petitioners to be heaid. on tHie subject matter of the Bill before a committee of the House. Mr. .W. A. VEITCH (Wanganui) gave | notice • to. ask • the Minister of Public Works whether it is triie that he intends to stop public works in the summer in order to make men available for country work, and if so what provision did he intend to make to ensure sucli workers getting a fair remuneration for their' labolir. Mr. P. O. WEBB "(Grey) gave notice to;ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the high price of ..commodities; he would introduce legislation to incase tie amounts payable by way of old age pensions and widows' pensions. Dr. A. - K. jSWMAN (Wellington East) gave notice to ask the Government whether they would introduce legislation to prevent aliens from acquiring land for military purposes, as had been done in Great Britain. EXPORT OF OATS. Mr. G. J. ANDERSON (Mataura) asked the Minister of Customs what he intended to do in regard to the embargo on the export of oats. He had been advised that in Southland the position was. acute. Heavy stocks, fax- more than sufficient for requirements at present rates, were held by merchants and farmers, and could not be disposed of unless export was permitied. He Hoii. A. M. MYERS (Minister of Customs) said he desired to say that the whole question of the export of oats was, receiving very careful attention from the Customs Department. So soon .as'circumstances would permit the removal .of tfhe .embargo, it would be removed. If'any merchant-who desired to ship any oats to.-the Commonwealth of Australia for Defence purposes would submit his proposal to the Department the matter would have immediate consideration. THE HUTT F.OAD. Mr. T. M. WILFORD (Hutt) asked the Prim© Minister whether the National Cabinet would consider the Hutt jßoad Bill beforo it became law. The Petono and Lower Hutt .Borough Councils had asked that the amount of tho cost to be. charged to the local authorities' should be reduced. The original sum asked of ths local authorises in respect to the making of'the road was £100,000: that had been reduced to £60,000 by the Government. Now tho local:bodies asked for, a. reduction to £40,000, whioli was £15,000 more than they' expected to have to pay when they entered! into the obligation. If this reduction were agreed to, these local authorities would raise no further., objection to the proportions allocated to them. The Right Hon. W. F. MASSEY said he could assuro the honourable gentleman that every Government Bill was carefully considered by members of tho Government prior to' its introduction, and approved by the Cabinet as a whole. He would like to say, however, that in his opinion, by the reduction of tho sum charged from £100,000 to £60,000, tho local authorities had been treated very liberally indeed. He considered that tho'local authorities should accept this offer with a fair amount of eagerness. Ho would have no objection to the'matter being considered by fEe National Cabinet. Mr. Wilrord suggested that the Bill . might he pat through its secon? reading, and that the Cabinet should con- ' sider 'the one question of tho amount to bo dliarged to the local bodies. Mr. Massey said he would advise the iicnourabb gentleman to be careful.

Ifc was just possible that the new Government might reverse the decision of tie late Government to ' reduce the amount payable, and might demand from the local bodies payment of the full amount of £100,000. ACCIDENT INSURANCE, SOME FAMILIAR ARGUMENTS. 'A long discussion on tho lines of others which liayo occurred at least twice in every session for years past took place on tlie presentation of the report of the Government Life Insurance Department. Several Opposition and Labour members advocated tho Govern- , ment Office taking over all accident in- , surance. By this meafis economy in administration would be ensured, and better benefits could be given to tho em--1 ployees in _ whose interest the scheme 1 was established. SIR JOSEPH WARD (Minister of Finance), iri'reply, said that honourable members must keep in mind the fact that all acoident insurance, and indeed all insurance business, was based on very careful'actuarial calculations. He denied that there was any extravagance or loss in the State Department. It was all very well to urge that these powerful insurance companies should be put out -of business, but when a Minister had the responsibility of office he had to consider what the effect of such an action would be in other directions. These great financial institutions were of the greatest assistance to the Government every time they required to raiso money by way of loans. Also any drastic - action against financial institutions might have a serious effect on the credit of New Zealand in the money markets of the world. He considered it was tho_ duty of the Government to look into the whole matter, but _ ho was anxious to avoid making any nerious mistake. It was the desire of every member ofithe Government, lie was sutb ; that every injured, worker should receive the! compensation to which he was entitled. In actual fact he had' had a consultation with the head of the Department as to the possibility of reducing _ rates. He nould like to see benefits increased, but in order that benefits might with safety be increased 1 , the insurance rates chargeable should be reduced, not in amount, but in proportion to tho risks inmrred. It was very important that too lieavy burdens should not bo put upon employers, because a reflex would be bcund to occur if that mistake were made. He consid-\ ered that tlio Accident Insurance Department !had done very good' work. One of its first tasks was to build up a strong reserve, and up till the present it had collected a reserve of only some £30,000. Having established this reserve, the office might" perhaps be justified now in taking greater risks. He was unable, to inform members what -would be done, or whether anything would be done. EXPEDITIONARY FORCES BILL. COURT-MARTIAL EVIDENCE. A Message was received from the Legislative Council stating that the Expeditionary Forces Bill/had been passed with amendments. The Hon. J. ALLEN (Minister of Defence) said that the clause struck out in the House, relating to court-martial evidence, had been reinserted. He had promised to consult the Law Office to see if it could be modified, and the Law Office had reported that the clause" was necessary. He movedi that the amendment should be agreed to. Mr. T: M. WILFORD (Hutt) again protested against the Courts having power to accept other than legal evidence. He could' not move the-.clause back, but he proposed to divide the House on the question. It was provided in thq Bill that men could be tried for offences outßide this; country, and also provided that sentences passed outside New Zealand could be confirmed here. He agreed with that, but there was no such provision in the British Army Act as the Minister proposed to put in the Bill here. Hearsay evidence should not be accepted.. The amount of difficulty in getting evidence should not be considered; with the proposal in tho Fill great injustice, might be done to a man who was charged before a court-martial. The Hon. A. L. HERDMAN (Attor-ney-General) said • that he was- quite satisfied that unless the clause was inserted mon who committed offences abroad would' not be able to be punished here. ■ It was true the Army Act provided for strict legal evidence, but he "was informed that' in practice strict legal evidence was not insisted! upon. To Ilia mind it was absurd to suppose that thoy would have to bring an officer from Gallipoli or Egypt to give evidence against ah offender. The Right Hon. W. F. MASSEY (Prime- Minister) suggested that the discussion should be held over till next sitting day, to allow members to look into the amendment, and see what it really involved. This counse was adopted. DISCUSSING QUESTIONS. The Right Hon. W. F. MASSEY (Prime Minister) said that he had been approached the dinner adjournment, and asked if he would agree to the discussion on questions being taken that evening.' He had no objection, but he could not give another afternoon for the discussing of them. If members would be satisfied with tho ordinary two hours for questions he would have no objection to that day's questions being discussed along with those of next Wednesday. ... ..After some discussion it "was decided to postpone Orders of the Day (Private Members' Bills), and deal with the questions, which had not been touchcd in the afternoon. The House adjourned at 9.35 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-day.