Parliament

Hastings Standard, Volume XIII, Issue 4313, 17 November 1909, Page 2

Parliament

I, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES _ _ TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16. The House met at 2.30 p.m. ORDER OF BUSINESS. The Premier made a statement regarding the probable duration of the session. With a view of facilitat- j ing business, he suggested that, as the whole of the Iproposals contained in the Budget would be brought down in separate bills, the debate on the Budget should be limited to the leaders of both parties. Ho did not, of course, refer 1) the independent members. His proposal was that if, with the limitation of the debate on the Budget, important business should be unconcluded by December 22nd, the House should reassemble about Feb. 2nd to deal with it, and then adjourn till the following year. The bills which he referred to as most important were the bill to authorise expenditure on a Dreadnought and the bills dealing with defence, land, native lands, licensing and King Country licensing, hospitals, superannuation and annuities. In reference to the Licensing Rill, in the event of Dominion Prohibition being carried, it would involve changes 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 that members would re strain themselves in view of the near approach of Christmas. Mr Massey, 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 agai-a after Christmas, but the House must face it. Mr McLaren considered the changes foreshadowed by the Budget revolutionary. They 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 Premier said he made the suggestion only for the House to accept or reject. Mr Hogg hoped that no member would submit to be gagged. The Premier's proposal was the most extraordinary one he had heard made : in the House. Mr Fisher said we were rapidly approaching a stage at which the country would be asked to put up [with administration without control. | Replying to Mr Malcolm, who | asked whether it was true that the Government would receive tenders for the construction of the Dreadnought, and, if so, would the Premier consider the advisability of leaving that to the Admiralty. ? Sir Joseph Ward said that the) Government had no intention of abrogating their prerogatives. The Government had nothing to do with the construction of the Dreadnought, but the House would have to ratify the acceptance of a tender. The House decided to give preference to Government business on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The Premier gave notice to sit on Mondays after Monday week. HOSPITALS AND CHARIT- | ABLE AID BILL. The House went into Committee! on the Hospitals and Charitable Aid J Bill. '

BUDGET DEBATE. In the evening, on the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, Mr Massey proceeded to criticise the Budget. He said that the circumstances under which the Financial tatement was introduced were unusual, and one important fact in it was that the increased debt amounted to four and a half millions. The present position and the outlook were far from satisfactory, and he could see no inclination on the part of the Government to taper off. He intended to deal, not with details but with principles. He compared the Financial Statements with a company prospectus.. The Budget: proposals embodied many reforms ( advocated by the Opposition. The Treasurer's admission that increased taxation was necessary was calcu-1 lated to damage the credit of the country. Hardly a class in the country was allowed to escape. In his opinion, the estimates of the amounts to be produced by the various items were much lower than they were likely to provfe. The primage duty was more likely to produce £85.000 than £50,000. The Customs taxation would fall upon the consumer. The same remark applied to the banking taxation. The existing state of affairs was due to the Government's failure to introduce proper land legislation. The sum estimated to be received from death duties was just equal to the liabilities in connection with the gift of a warship to the Imperial Government. Huge areas of land were lying idle. The arrivals in the Dominion were equalled by the departures. He objected to the death duties applied to widows' estates, which under the proposed legislation would pay death duties twice. The Government asked for borrowing powers to the extent of nearlv eight^millions,

I which was an enormous amount for a small country like this. He congratulated the Government on their | concession to the freehold principle, I but twitted the Liberal party with willingness to vote freehold or leasehold to order, fie, 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. If that were lost, values would go down. He condemned the system of endowment lands as a ghastly failure, the endowments in existence retarding settlement. He advocated selling endowment lands and investing the money in towns and suburban lands. The Government had been responsible for criminal waste and negligence in connection with land settlement. He hoped the Government would repeal the objectionable provisions of the Gaming Act. Mr Fowlds, replying to Mr Massey's criticism of the borrowing policy, said the House had coutrol over that. The money had gone to assist in the development of the country. After pressing the Government to expend huge sums for public works, the Opposition objected to the public debt. The Opposition accused the Government of stealing their policy and then turned round and condemned that policy when it was proposed to place it 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 taxation being higher in the Dominion than in Australia was that the Dominion carried on many more public services thar. the Commonwealth States. Continuing. Mr Fowlds said that the increased taxation was largely on the increased incomes accruing from the growing prosperity for which the Government deserved thanks instead of condemnation. He defended the death duties, and thought they did not go far enough. He also defended the changes proposed in the land policy. Mr Allen denied that the Opposition opposed the idea of endowment lands on principle. They objected to the kind of land set aside for the purposes of endowments. The scheme sl-iould have been carried out long ago, when, proper lands were available, and the old-age pensions fund and education would have derived some benefits 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 were gradually taking awayall Parliamentary control from members. Parliament had no say in presenting the Dreadnought, nor in the Midland Railway contract. The predominant note of the Budget was taxation due to Government extravagence. The cost of railway construction had gone up £258 per mile. And the cost of running expenses had ereatly increased. The tendency of the Budget was to increase expenditure and borrowing. He said the Premier had misled the House in regard to the superunauation schemes. Mr Miller charged Mr Allen with inconsistency m condemning retrenchment and extravagance in one breath. He denied the truth of the statement that Parliament had lost control. As to the cost of railways it should be remembered that this country was very difficult for railway constrtuction. If railways were to be run as they were in New South Wales it would mean a reduction in the wages of railway servants. Mr T. E. Taylor considered the proposed surrender of the State's interest in renewable leases as the most retrograde step since 189 c. He considered the clauses in the Budget dealing with the freehold utterly disgraceful. He moved as an amendment that the House affirm the unsatisfactory nature of the land clauses of the Budget, and that the people were entitled rd have an opportunity by means of a referendum to say whether any more Ciown lands should be sold, cr whether the remnant of the lands should be preserved and the annual revenue be available in future to reduce the burdens of taxation. Mr Tayloi drastically condemned the primage duty, which he said would ultimately cust consumers £250,000 a year.

Mr Laurenson moved the adjournment of the debate. ADJOURNMENT, The House rose at 1.30 a.m.