House of Representatives

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 9298, 27 July 1901, Page 7

House of Representatives

SUPPLY. An Imprest Supply Bill Avas brought down by Governor's message. On the motion to go into committee of Supply for its consideration, Mr Fisher moved an amendment that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Police Department as administered by Commissioner Tunbridge. He said he was prompted to bring forward this motion because of widespread complaints throughout the colony at the administration of the police force by Commissioner Tunbridge. He wished to make it clear that the motion in no way applied to the rank and file of the force. Its scope was limited to Commissioner Tunbridge and the higher officers who were directly under his control. He proceeded to make a series of charges against Commissioner Tunbridge, going very fully into details. Mr McGowan defended Commissioner Tunbridge from the attacks that had been levelled against him, and said he had always found him most anxious to do the work of the colony in the best manner possible, and to do fairly by all cases that came before him. Mr Fisher had not quoted one strong instance against the Commissioner. If it could be shown that he had done anything against any of his officers, he (Mr McGowan) would be only too willing to facilitate an enquiry into the matter, but nothing had come under his notice which would warrant such action. Mr Millar said Commission»r. Tunbridge was highly respected throughout the colony, both inside and of the service, and the whole trouble was that he was too clever for the schemers in the police force. Mr. Wilford contended that' matters were not satisfactory in the police force in Wellington. There were two faction!?, aud so long as that continued the result woxdd not be satisfactory. Mr Napier said that in so far as Auckland was concerned matters were most satisfactory. Mr Seddon said they should keep this matter out of politics. Political interference in the past had been detrimental to the police force. He highly complimented the Commissioner. He had been told before appointing him that he was one of the ablest men in che service at Home, and since his arrival here he had done first-class work. The Government desired to have the police force kept as perfect and independent as possible, and did not; want to have the force dragged into our political life. It would not promote harmony in the force or further the ends of justice to have these charges bandied about the floor of the Housf, and he hoped the membar for Wellington would withdraw his amendment, and let the House get on with the Bill. A large number of other members also spoke, the tone of the discussion being strongly in defence of Commissioner Tuobridge's administration. • Mr Fisher's amendment was negatived on the voices, and the House went into Committee of Supply for the purpose of putting an Imprest Supply Bill for £470,000 through its initial stages. In committee on the bill Captain Russell pointed out that there was an increase of £190,000 in imprest to date, as compared with the corresponding period of last year. He would like some explanation for so vas.t an increase. Mr Seddon said the increase in the Estimates were very large, in addition to which there were very large orders from the Agent-General. The additional imprest was due to the increased general expenditure, both in the public works fund and the consolidated fund. Captain . Russell contended that the Estimates had nothing to do with the matter, as they were not before the Housd yet. The Premier should give the House some idea of the nature of the increased expenditure. Mr Seddon replied that if the public works expenditure was increased the imprest must also be increased. Mr Massey asked that some of the items be given. Mr Seddon retorted that the money had been expended in accordance with the directions of Parliament. Captain Russell desired to know when tho Financial Statement and Estimates would he brought down. Three months of the financial year had gone, and the House knew nothing of the public expenditure. The House had a right to know the details at the earliest moment. The sum of £940,000 had already been voted for imprest this year, and members had no idea how the money had been spent. Mr Seddon said that he hoped to bring down the Statement the week after nest. There were good reasons for bringing the Statement down early this year. It was necessary at the present rate of expenditure to go into the finances carefully, and the Government were desirous of obtaining the assistance of members as soon as possible. The bill passed through committee without amendment. On the motion for the third reading, Mr Massey enquired why a return showing the travelling expenses of Ministers had not yet been laid on the table. In this respect Ministers were simply treating the House with contempt. The Premier would find his Estimates would go through quicker and easier if this were forthcoming. Mr Seddon said the return referred to had been overlooked through stress of other business, hut it would be available in a day or two. There was no necessity to keep the return back, and there was no warrant for attempting to m£ce capital out of the matter. The increased imprest was due to the fact that the expenditure waa going up, and was already in excess of last year. Certain reductions in taxation had been promised. He re-

ferred particularly to the mortgage tax, but he was afraid these remissions could not be granted unless an increase was made in another direction, viz., in the graduated land lax. . The bill then passed its final stages. MINERS'RIGHTS. Mr R. M'Kenzie moved the second reading of the Miners' Kights-Fee Reduction Bill, to reduce the fees payable in respect of miners' rights in certain cases. He said the time had came to reduce the fee for miners' rights as low as possible. The second reading was agreed to on the voices. , SHOP ASSISTANTS. Mr Barclay moved the second reading of the Shops and Shop Assistants' Act Amendment Bill, which he said was one of the slaughtered innocents of a previous sessiou. It provided for ;a weekly halfholiday for chemists, and also for domestic servants. For the latter, a day could be fixed between a servant and mistress. He considered that if the conditions and social position of servants were bettered, there would be no lack of suitable girls for housework. \ « The cecond reading was agreed to on the voices. TOTALISATOR ABOLITION. Mr Ell moved the second reading of the Totalisator Abolition Bill, to abolish the use of the totalisator. It was the opinion, he said, of one of our Judges, that the larger per centage of crime by young New Zealanders in a calendar lately before him arose mainly from gambling. The State prevented other forms of gambling, and branded bookmakers as blackleg s, and to be consistent should abolish the totalisator. Mr La wry maintained that the increase in gambling was due, not to the use, but to the repression of the totalisator, such repression as was given effect to in the bill introduced in 1894 by Sir Robert Stout, limiting the number of totalisator permits. If the hon. gentleman wished to become a reformer, let him bring in a bill to devote all totalisator moneys to charitable purposes. Mr Carncross believed that the abolition of the totalisator would no more suppress gambling than prohibition would prohibit the alcoholic trade. The totalisator had been a great factor in the decrease in the number of race meetings throughout.the colong owing to the limit of permits. Mr Laurenson strongly supported the bill, holding that the real question was whether the State should legalise gambling in any form. Air A. L. D. Fraser-, in opposing the bill, contended that the totalisator brought about an improved breed of horses, and encouraged the importation of the best blood from Home. Another great recommendation in favor of the machine was that it was conducted on a cash basis. Mr Herries thought the House should have an expression of opinion on the bill from the Government benches. He defended the totalisator as being the best form of betting on horses, but if the bill passed its second reading he hoped the hon. member in charge would insert a clause in committee to meet the case of racing clubs which had made programme engagements some time ahead. Mr Meredith supported the bill. He looked upon the totalisator as a very great evil, and what was morally wrong could not be legally right. Mr Willis said the State was inconsistent in allowing the totalisator to exist. If sweeps were illegal the totalisator should also be illegal. Mr Carroll said be. had always been opposed to the abolition of the totalisator, and he had seen no reason to change his views. Gambling would exist in one form or another. If they abolished one form it would break out in another. Things connected with sport had been in a very bad way some years ago, gambling being rampant in all shapes and forms, but the /atmosphere had since been cleared, and the totalisator now served to minimise the great amount of racing in the colony. Years ago there had been no proper supervision or regulation of the sport, but all that had now been changed, and the racing conference which met annually was composed of men whose only desire was to upraise the sport of racing. If the totalisator were abolished j an undesirable class would come to the i front, who were now kept in check. If he thought the gambling spirit could be eliminated from human nature he would support the hon. gentleman, but he felt sure he would be disappointed with the effect that would be produced if the totalisator was swept away. Mr Bennett opposed the bill. Mr Gilfedder had just risen to speak, when the debate was interrupted by the 10 30 adjournment, and the House rose.