HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 113, 9 November 1910, Page 4

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The House continued its sitting after The Post wexit to press yesterday afternoon. COUNTIES AMENDMENT. On the motion for the third reading of the Counties Act Amendment Bill, it was urged that there was need to make haste slowly, ftir the sake of districts which had to get accustomed to the new legislation. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie replied that he had no desire to rush matters. The Bill passed without further discussion. RAPID PASSING. Th 9 thud readings and passings of three Bills — Companies Amendment, Judicature, and Education Reserveswere carried in three minutes. DESTITUTE PERSONS. The Destitute Persons Bill (which has been passed by the Legislative Council) was debated. The principal objects of the Bill is to cope with the">problem oi child desertion. Sir Joseph Ward, in moving the second reading, gave- figures to show the burdens placed on the general public by parents who shirked their responsibilities. A stringent Bill was needed to deal with this evil, and it was claimed that the new BilJ inado better provision in this respect than any legislation of the past. Mr. Herries said he believed everyone would agree with the Premier that better safeguards were needed against shirkers, bub he thought the scope waa too wide, and some of the clauses were too drastic. It was a bureaucratic Bill, and it would therefore have to be- carefully watched The Bill, in its present shape, would bo very unpopular. DEEDS OF SEPARATION. Mr. Wilford remarked that some husbands and wives, fearing the publicity of the courts, entered into a deed of separation. These det'ds of separation well all right till the husband's payments for maintenance fell into arrears. Under the present law the women could receive the money only by civil process m a court 'of Jaw. Mr. Wilford urged that there should be a system under which a magistrate would be empowered to make an order for payment on a certificate of separation. The best part of the Bill was the provision that a, woman had a to separation orthe ground that he is a habitual inebriate. The Bill, however, he complained, contained one of the "fads" of the law drafting department— the desire to do away with trial by jury. Mr Hogg approved of the Bill especially m regard to its provisions against deserting husbands, of whom h* fL ™ long cx P er ience as a member of the Charitable Aid Board. He questioned whether there was a country in the world where wife and child desertion was so easy. And thi* desertion was not on the part of poor smugglers, but of strong young men who, after a little while, became dissatisfied and went to another part of the world. Such an offence should be included iv the Crimes Act and not, he regarded, merely as a social offence/ " Mr. Wright agreed that such a Bill was necessary, particularly in regard to obhging p are m a of illegitimate children to shoulder their responsibilities. He thought, however, that no one against whom a maintenance order was in force U°f hV aII< T d t0 leave N ew Zea hind whether there were any arrears oi not, so as to prevent a man selling his property paying maintenance t m I period in advance and then clearing Sotoe a CaSe ° Om * Under hib The motion to commit the Bill was agreed to on the voices, and the BUI was at once considered in committee. In clause 2 Mr. Wilford moved an amendment to provide that a "habitual inebriate" shall be a person who f« qnently (?nstead of & bittuJ1 ™ f alcoholic liquor in excess Sir Joseph. Ward said h6h 6 could not accept the amendment. Such a change would, he thought, be inadvisable ° i.ne amendment was lost by 42 to 21 ' Some discussion took place as to how far relatives should be responsible u£ the law ior the support of their iIS mate relation*. The Bill coSemrS j the possibility of the sister of an illegitimate male being responsible for I , maintenan^ and objection was taken to tins, feu- Joseph Ward remark ml Jr. reply that the &11 had «lnJ3?be£ be fore the Statute* Revision Committee of both Houses, and if there had been any remarkable anomalies in the existing i flw exception would surely have been taken. Mr. Wilford contended that the only person liable foi the support of an illegitimate child should be the father or mother, and he moved an amendment to free from liability the mother's father or mother, as provided by the clause. On a division the voting was ayes 31 noes 31, and the chairman (Mr. Colvuij gave his casting vote against the amendment. AN INTERESTING POIN'I. . Mr G. W. Russell moved an amendment to make responsible for the maintenance of an illegitimate child thp fathei or mother of the father of the child (as well as the mother's father or mother). Mr Herdman characterised the pro posal as preposterous. Mr. Eu&sell: You make the mother's parents responsible. Mr. Herdman held that the Opposi tion was not responsible for that clause of the Bill. Mr. Russell replied that as the mother's parents were held to be responsible, it was logical that the parents of the person adjudged to be the fa the. should be equally responsible. A member : Even more so. Mr. C. Hall: Certainly. Compel then* to marry. The amendment was carried on the voacea,

A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE. At clause ten Mr. Wilford moved that the first sub-clause be struck out. This proposed that the. evidence of the mother of an illegitimate child shall not be necessary for the making of an affiliation older or maintenance order. It was, Mr. Wilford declared, a positively wicked proposal. He quoted cases within his legal experience in which women had wrongfully attempted to fasten fatherhood on to men, and had only been defeated by cross-examination in the witness-box. Sir Joseph Ward said it was the law at present that the mother need not be called to prove her caee. Such a clause was necessary to meet instances where a mother died after giving birth to an illegitimate child. All. Wilford replied that there was no case on record in New Zealand where an affiliation order had been made without the case being proved on the evidence of the mother. 'I he proposal to strike out the clause was lost by 36 to 23. TRIAL BY JURY. Mr. Wilford strongly opposed clausie 59, providing that indictable offences under the Act shall be punished summarily. It was, he contended, another instance of the attempt of the Law Drafting Department to do away with trial by jury. The clause was retained by 32 to 25. Clause 70 provided that no proceedings under .the Act should give the defendant/ the right to trial by jury. Mr* Wilford objected to it on that score, amd called • for a. division. Sir Joseph Ward pointed out that the Statutes Revision Committee, chiefly composed of lawyers, had taken no ex cepticai to the proposal. Mr. Fisher asked wha.t was the reason for this change of the law ? Six Joseph Ward : For good reasons which it is not necessary to state. Certain people wanted to lea>vo the door open for abuse of the law, ajid a<t present the State was providing about £150,000 for industrial school children, degenerates, and so qh; and he. objected to people who wanted to escape their obligations being enabled to raise sentimental questions before a jury. No magistrate, he added, could impose a longer sentence than six months. Mr. Forbes wanted to know whether tirial by jury in this connection had broken down? ".Broken down is not the name for it/ replied Sir Joseph Ward. "There have been men running away from their wives a«nd children by the score, and lawyers have been getting them off by the score." • The clause was struck out by 39 votes to 25. ANOTHER^ CLAUSE STRUCK OUT. Mr. Berries tooK exception to new clause 18b, inserted by the Statutes Revision Committee, providing that if, while a separation, order remains in force, the wife dies intestate, her property is to go as it would have gone if her husband had beeL dead, and he urged that this meant the disinheriting of the husband on account of what might be merely a temporary difference. Sir Joseph Ward did not press the clause, and it was struck out. The Bill was repealed with amendments. LOCAL BODIES' LOANS. The Local Bodies' Loans Amendment Bill was committed. Sir Joseph Ward strongly opposed an amendment by Mr. Newman, providing for the raising of loans provisionally ap■proved under the Loans to Local Bodies Act on the same terms as if th© Stateguaranteed Advamoes Act of last year had not been, passed. He objected to the two Acts remaining an existence side by side. He had heard no complaints as to the working of the present Act; on the other hand, he bad much evidence from local bodies of the benefits they had derived frxom the State-guajanteed Advances Act.* In the course of mrther discussion, Sir Joseph Ward declared that the resistance to this cheap money scheme cam© not from the local bodies, but from people who wanted to "murder" those local bodies by charging high vates of interest. * r i Mr. Massey said that was not a fact. Ihe opposition to the Act came from the people to whom money was made dear._ Small local bodies in outlying districts who were opening up the country had to pay £1 7~. 6d per cent, more than they did two years ago. The effect of the Bill, he declared, was to encourage the people in a plunging policy. Local bodies should he encouraged to find their own loans without going to the Government. Mr. Ell contended that every consideration had been shown to the back-blocks' local bodies, and that large sums had been lent to them for development purposes free of interest. Sir Joseph Ward pointed out that no local body could get any money without giving adequate security and obtaining the consent of the ratepayers. For his own part, he had arranged in such a way that the finances of the country would be secured for another year. On division Mr. Newman's amendment was negatived by 44 to 24. Mr! Newman moved another amendment to bring under the provisions of this Bill local bodies which had applied for the loans but had not received the monej, 'being granted the loan under the provisions of the old Loans to Local tSodies Act. This was losC by 44 to 27, and the clause was passed. A new clause was moved by Sir Joseph Ward to pievent authorised loans being challenged on account of minor irregularifies : It was agreed to by 47 to 24. Mr. VVilford moved a new clause to provide that when a local authority, with the consent of the ratepayers, has raised any money for any particular undertaking, and afterwards decides not to engage in that undertaking, it may, if authorised by a poll of the ratepayers, appropriate a part or the whole of the money so raised to any other undertaking that it, is authorised b\ law to engage \n. Sir Joseph Waid opposed the clause, on the ground that the people who leat the money ought to be consulted in tho case of diversion. The amendment was lost on the voices. Mr. Massey moved a new clause tof.rovide that sinking funds need not be put in the hands of the Public Trustee for investment in Government securities, as provided by the principal Act. This was lost by 37 votes to 34, and tha Bill was then reported with amendments. The further stage of the Bill was set down for consideration "next sitting day." OTHER BILLS. KAIAPOI NATIVE LAND. The amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Kaiapoi Reserves Bill were agreed ft>. COMMERCIAL TRUSTS. The amendment made by the LegisJa tiyo Council in the Commercial Trusts Bill was agreed to without discussion. RATING NATIVE LANDS. It was just on midnight Avhen the Hon. A. Ngatc moved the committal of the Rating Amendment Bill, which, as has already been explained, aims at. bringing Maori-owned lands vritmn the provisions of the ordinary Rating Act, due regard being paid to the uunculties imposed by the communal customs of the Maori, while at the tame time encouraging Maori owners to cultivate the »and they own either in common or in •KJl'arate holdings. The Minister expressed the belief that the effect of the Will would be to encourage the payment of rates by Maori ownefs— to the

benefit of local authorities — and to force « large area of Maori land into settlement. That was the deliberate intent of the Bill. (At this stage many members were absent, several' were inattentive, and some were palpably ignorant of what the. mover of the Bill was talking about.) But tho HoiibC never takes kindly to the discussion ot Maori land problems, especially after midnight, and the House appeared to take mo notice of the Hon. Mr. Ngata when he stated that the Maories are recognising that only by the payment of rates can they get a voice in local government, and that when they do get thai, voice, backed up by rate payment, they will be entitled to make as much noise, from the local government point of view, as anyone else. Mr. Herries congratulated the Govern ineflt on having .made a big step in advance towards the goat aimed at, but one really good proposal was that by which the actual occupier of the land was made responsible for the payment of the rates. What he wanted to know was, what was going to be done with the 800,000 acres of land vested in the Maori Land Boards and not yet leased ior profitable occupation. He would rather have seen the board charged with the rates, with power to impose it as a charge on subsequent lessees. He believed that the Bill would materially aid the local bodies in collecting their rates. Mr. Jennings made pointed reference to the small attendance of members, but he mentioned that it was his usual experience in the 'House when matters affecting the native race were under consideration. It was then 0.40 a.m., and the few members present had nothing to say by way of reply. The only apparent consolation of members who spoke was that their speeches were recorded in Hansard. One member snored blatantly. He was only one of seventeen members, and as it tafees twenty (out of 80) to make a quorum, the interest taken by the House in native affairs can be easily computed. Mr., Jennings declared that under the guise of leasehold, large areas of Maori lands are being acquired by the freehold, but no one woke up, and the snorer snored more sonorously as the member for Taumarumu reached his peroration. Mr. Reed gave the House the credit of numbering twenty (he was two out). He discovered for himself the fact that at 0.50 a.m., Maori land matters are a drug in the market. The motion to commit the Bill was carried at just after 1.30 a.m. Just then the precincts thrust into view some few members who had not been seen for a long while. But they did not make their presence felt in any particular respect, and the members who had sat and done the work made no remark. The House rose, at the Premier's suggestion, at 1.35 a.m.