PARLIAMENT

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8052, 4 August 1904, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY? AUGUST 3. The House met at 2.3 a NEW BILLS. Tho Waitara Harbor Board Foreshore Egmont Bill (Jennings), and the Borough jf South Dunedin Empowering Bill (Sidey) were read a first time. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. One week's leave of absence was granted to Mr D. Koid (Taieri) on account of urgent private business. PAHIATUA ELECTORATE. The Speaker announced the return of the writ for the Pahiatua seat and the election of Mr W. H. Hawkins. FINANCIAL DEBATE. Mr J. Colvin (Buller) resumed the debate on the Financial Statement. He held that if better facilities were given to miners to open up new areas there would soon be a large increase in the mining industry. The Government did not give the mining industry sufficient support. He did not blame the Minister for Mines for this, but the Cabinet was at fault in not sanctioning larger appropriations. with regard to coal mining he complained that instead of breaking up the coal monopoly the Government were creating a monopoly of their own. As obstacles had been placed in the way of private syndicates taking up coal areas in his district the Government had prevented the flotation of half a dozen companies with sound capital. He also urged upon the Government the necessity of properly defending the coal ports of Westport and Greymouth. Mr Lawry (Parnell) said the Opposition had not sufficient honesty of purpose to,admit that while the public debt had increased the national assets had proportionately increased. He thought some comprehensive form of local Government should be devised by which the control of votes for roads and bridges should be taken out of thn hands of Parliament. The whole of the land tax of the 'colony should be devoted to developing the country by opening up rpads. If the . money were pooled for that specific purpose a good deal of the mere "tin-pot" business the House was called upon to perform would be rendered unnecessary. Parliament would thereby be placed above the status of a huge road board, and would be able to devote its time to its legitimate legislative functions. He urged that the payment of subsidies to local bodies should be on a graduated scale under which the largest amounts would be paid to th« poorest districts. Mr Lang (Waikato) remarked that the bottom had fallen out of the advances tc settlers' scheme, and the Government were only able to carry it on by the amount of money which borrowers were paying off their mortgages. The GoV' eminent should encourage the immigratior of farmers with capital, but the land foi settlements policy prevented a large nura ber of people coming to the colony at they feared that if they took up land anc made homes for themselves their lane might be taken from them. In regard t< land settlement he declared that unless roads were provided the Crown would los< many of its tenants, and he complainet particularly of the practice of the Gpv eminent of making portions of roads anc leaving gaps unmade. ' Mr J. Bennett (Tuapeka) urged the ex tension of the Otago Central Railway an< also thought the Midland Railway shouh be pushed on without delay. He main tamed that the money borrowed by tin Government had been of advantage to thi colony and reproductive in every way He advocated an immigration policy, anc thought the Government should devoti more attention to developing the electrica power contained in the rivers and stream; of the colony. The debate was carried on during th< evening by Messrs Witheford, Millar Flat man, and Sir William Russell. The debate was adjourned, and thi House rose at midnight. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3. The Council met at 2.30. ' TIED HOUSES BILL. Hon. J. Hogg, in moving the seconi reading of the Tied Houses Bill, said if th* Government had made an effort to effec tually deal with the question of tie< houses he would not have troubled thi Council again with the bill. •He ex I plained that the measure made it un > lawful for any brewer, cordial manufac turer, or spirit merchant to be owner o any licensed premises, and that from Is January, 1907, all instruments of titl purporting to vest any licensed premise in any brewer, cordial manufacturer, o spirit merchant, for any estate or in terest, should be deemed to be null an< void, the registration of every such in strument to be cancelled. The bill ala made it unlawful for any brewer, cordia manufacturer, or spirit merchant to ad vanoe money to any licensed person, am no action could be taken in any Cour for the recovery of money so lent. H protested against brewers' methods o dealing with their tenants, which wer tantamount to robbery. The bill jus passed in the House of Commons wa most iniquitous, and showed the Britisl Government were largely in the hands o brewers. In the bill of last session thi Government had by the introduction o two clauses done more to injure thi Liberal cause than its enemies. Clausi 9 was a stupid proposal, and clause 14 proposing to make Mayors and Chairmei of local bodies ex officio members o Licensing Committees, was dangerous a upsetting the principle of election by th< people. His own feeling was in favo of municipal ownership of the trade, bit in the meantime they should do wha they could to put down .the monopoly a present existing. He would be witling ti accept a modification of the bill in com mittoc. Hon. W. M. Bolt supported the sec ond reading. It was clearly the inten tion of the Act of 1895 that there shouh be no tied houses. The brewers ha< found means of evading that' law, an< it should not be tolerated. He knew o a case in Canterbury where th© rent of i hotel was fixed at £1250, but in tin event of beer being taken from a oartaii brewery only, the rent was to be reduce* to £650. That sort of thing was com mon. Many hotelkeepers made an effor to clear their trade, but the first thinj the brewers did was to insist that lessee: should break the law. Something wouk have to be done to remedy the evil. Th< control of the trade would either havi to be under the nufnidjpality or th< State. He preferred the former, Th» Attorney-General, referring to tin attitude of the* Council towards the bil last session, said it was not that th< Council were unwilling to prevent th< evasion of the existing law, ibut becaus< the means proposed to bring about thai end were too drastic. Altogether the lav of 1895 was ample to deal .with the mat bar. What the Government proposed t( do was to get the law officer to draft clauses which would prevent the Act ol 1895 being evaded, and that would tx done in a reasonable way, and not in the manner proposed under the bill now be fore the Council. Hon. H. Scotland failed to see why the brewer should not be allowed to enter intt any contract he wished with his tenant. If ho committed fraud Ik was amenable to law. If tied houses were abolished what guarantee was there that the public would not be supplied wUh deleterious compounds? Hon. J. M. Twomey said the question of evasion had been before the Supreme Court, . and declared not to -exist. A great objection to the bill was not its drastic character, but that the Selct Committee of the Council hsd decided there was no evrl in, tied ho.use&. Why should the Council seek to. interfere wi''i tltya business of legal trade? Auek ( <tn] was held up as. a frightful exgmple of t^e evifc of tied hfluaeg, but in no ptßce in the colony was there better hotels or better-conducted ones>\ The greatest evil lay in the matter ol goodwill md high prices were paid for goodwill, wh'ch necessitated a resort to bad methods in order to recoup the outlay. The hill would make for wholesale confiscation of property. Referring to the opposition to clause 9, he said in Ashburton there w»rc now 100 sly-grog shops, wht.re there we*e only seven public-hcuses formerly. He Was in favor of municipalisation of, th« traffic. ' Hon. F. H. Fraser supported the bill. The liquor monopoly was eating the heart out of the country, and he was glad to see the Government proposed to do something to prevent evasion of the law by brewers. Hon. Lee Smith supported ihe bill. The Attorney-General had admitted the lawwas evaded, but why were not ateps taken to punish the law-breakers? Brewers did not seem to Have learned anything by experience. They, must know, that prohibitionists wer# ' supported by ; tlje moderate drinker* Public opinion, hidbsen disgusted at the. way some members of thia trade carried on business, anf* they were spinning the rope in, makmg cases by wkjck, to, hang, themselves. The combinaticA in! the tied house system would be. enabled to bring enormous power to. bear, uppn the Legislature, in, time, wn4 the position was one of danger to the country. Horn. J. Rigg having replied, the biH was thrown out by 1§ votes to 8. TOWN DISTRICTS BILL. Hen. W. F. Camcreas, moved the second reading of the Town Districts Bill, enabling the Government to declare any area a town district, and thereupon the Town district Act, 1881, shall be in force in that district. Hon. W. C. Smith opposed the bill, on the ground that it would unnecessarily increase local bodies. The debate was adjourned;.