PARLIAMENTARY

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 10466, 2 October 1894, Page 5

PARLIAMENTARY

[Per Press Association.} LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Monday, Oct. 1. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Council met at 2.30'p.m. PETITIONS. The Public Petitions dommittee,on" the prayer of Police Inspector Em6rsdn,who asked for a grant of land on account of military service, reported that it had no recommendation to make. The Committee reported on the petition of Major' Brown, Taranaki, who was removed from theCommission of the Peace, and who asked for further investigation into his case, that the matter should he'referred to the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court. The Colonial Secretary opposed the recommendation, on the ground that the Minister of Justice was ill at the time. The evidence was taken before the Committee, and therefore the matter should be referred back to the Committee for additional evidence. This was agreed to. CONSOLS. The Consols Bill was received from the House, and read a first time. LAND FOB SETTLEMENTS. The Hon W. Montgomery moved the third reading of the Land for Settlements Bill. The Hon C. C. Bowen moved, as an amendment, the recommittal of the Bill, which was agreed to by 23 to 8. The Bill was recommitted. The Hon C. C. Bowen, on behalf of the Hon J. D. Ormond, moved, as a proviso to Clause B—Compulsory taking of land — “Provided that such selection may be composed of first-class, second-class and pastoral land, and that the area selected shall be so determined that the acreage of each class shall not exceed proportionately the prescribed maximum!.” Carried by 22 to 8. The Hon C. C. Bowen moved a, new clause, to the effect that no land shall be taken compulsorily until the County Council or Road Board interested has reported, thereon as to its suitability. The amendment resulted in the voting being 15 to 15. The Chairman I ,gave his casting vote for the noes, and the new clause was negatived. Sir G. S. Whitmore moved a new clause, to the effect that no laud shall be compulsorily acquired at a less price than the Government valuation under the Land and Income Tax Act, 1891, and 10 per cent added. The was lost on the voices. The Hon W. M. Bolt moved a new clause “Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory purchase of lands which have been set apart as endowments or reserved.” Agreed to on the voices. The Bill was reported with amendments, RATING BILL. The Rating Bill was further considered in Committee, and progress was immediately reported. The Council then adjourned till next day. HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. EVENING SITTING. The House met at 7.30 p.m. NEW BILLS, The Mining Act Amendment Bill (Mr Cadman) and Native Land Validation of Titles Act 1893 Amendment Bill (Mr Seddon) were introduced and read a first time. factories bill. The amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Factories Bill came up for consideration.

The Hon W. P. Reeves said he could not aak the House to agree With all the amendments, but it was his pleasant duty to express hia appreciation of the fair, reasonable and business-like manner in which this Bill appeared to have 'beentreated ip. the Legislative Council. He thought it only right that he should say this, as on other occasions he had had to condemn the attitude of that Chamber towards Labour Bills. Some of the amendments made by the Council in this Bill were a positive improvement, while others were of a trifling nature. Others, again, he did not regard as improvements on the Bill, but as they were of no importance, he wouldnot ask the House to disagree with them., Some of the amendments, however, were distinct blots on the Bill, and he would, therefore, move that the House appoint managers to draw up reasons for disagreeing with them. The principal amendments he asked the House to disagree with ware in Clause 54, in which the Council had struck out the sub-section providing that no woman should be employed in any factory or workroom during four weeks after her confinement; in Clause 56, to which the Council had added the words, “ except in special cases with the sanction of the inspector” to the provision that no child shall be employed in any factory or workroom ; and in Clause 63, in which a new proviso had been inserted allowing any shopkeeper who carries on a factory as an auxiliary to his shop, to observe as the halfholiday under the Act the afternoon of the day on which he is required to close his shop, when any other day than Saturday is appointed for the half-holiday. He also asked the House to disagree with the action of the Council in striking out Clause 64, which allowed all factory hands, male and female, a half-holiday in each week. Mr Reeves added that he had not very much hope of saving this clause, but he thought the House should disagree with it on the principle that if the Council would not give way on it and the clause were lost, it would be inserted in the Eight Hours’ Bill, which he hoped would be passed into law next session. If the Council met the House on these amendments in the same conciliatory spirit as they had treated the Bill, there would be passed into law the best . Factory Act in the Empire, if not the best Factory Act appearing on any statute book in the world.

Mr Beeves’ motion was then agreed to, and Sir Bobert Stout, Mr J. W. Kelly and the mover were appointed managers to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the amendments he had enumerated. ADVANCES TO SETTLERS. The Hon J. G. Ward moved that .the Government Advances to Settlers Bill be re-committed for consideration of the amendments in certain clauses. Several members urged that Clause 25, “ Classes of land onwhicji money may be advanced,” should also be re-considered, but this was opposed fay Ministers, and lost by 30 to 23. It was agreed on the voices to re-commit Clause 42, in order to consider the proposal to reduce the minimum advance from £SO to .£25. Mr Massey moved consideration of a □aw clause providing that money lent out privately at 5 per cent should escape mortgage tax* The Hon J. G. Ward opposed the amendment on the ground that it traversed the whole system of the Land and Income Assessment Act. - After some discussion, Mr Massey’s motion was lost by 40 to 12. When the Bill was committed. Major Steward moved in Clause 42 to reduce the minimum of advances from J 650 to £25. The Hon J. G. Ward accepted the amendment, as it would enable a large number of small people to obtain advances. Mr Allen said it would add greatly to the expense of the scheme. ' Major Steward held that it would not add one shilling to the cost. Mr Bell said it was obvious that it would. After a short discussion Major Steward’s amendment was agreed to on the voices. Clause 43, subsection B, providing that no advance on security of leasehold lands should be granted until the lessee was entitled under his lease to compensation for ail improvements, was struck out. A new sub-clause was added to Clause 46, providing that the Governor-in-Council may from time to time, by regulations, alter the conditions of any mortgage docket. Clause 58 was amended to provide that the superintendent's balance-sheet shall be submitted to Parliament. , Clause 74, providiogAhat

Act should not apply to this Act, was amended by the addition of the following words-.—" Except in cases where the Colonial Treasurer shall certify his consent to the discharge of a bankrupt from debt® payable under this Act.” A new clause, embodying certain provisions to apply to every mortgage of leasehold land, was added. These new provisions deal with the payment of the instalments of mortgage debt, and stipulate also that the mortgager shall not be able to surrender hia lease, or to exercise any right of purchase, without the consent of the superintendent. The Bill was then reported. On the motion for the third reading, Sir R. Stout expressed his regret that members had not been allowed a free hand in suggesting amendments in Committee. This was a Bill of class legislation, as it did not give all persons in the State an equal chance of becoming borrowers under it. The maximum to be loaned had been maintained in spite of thf fact that many members had urged a reduction. He contended that the Colonial Treasurer could only give 33 per cent for land bonds in New Zealand, hut in London could borrow for the purposes of the Act up to 4 per cent. This was a singular anomaly. He had understood in committee that the Crown would pay the mortgage tax, but they had learned differently that evening. Under this arrangement the Government would lose £12,500 a year on mortgage tax. Every mortgagor who borrowed from the Crown would be let off a i per cent, and if the same concession were afforded to private loan companies they would be able to charge lower rates of interest. Bat it would bo asked, how they were to assist the settlers of the country if not by this scheme. His reply was that the Government should haye utilised the Public Trust Office and Bite Insurance Office funds! With careful management this source would have yielded the Government half a million a year, if it did not take up Treasury Billl, to lend out to small settlers. In the face of this he would like to know the noceMlty for these borrowing proposals.,! Believing that the Bill would injure thecolony, *»e entered his protest against the third reading. Dr Newman thought the Treasurer had lost an excellent chance of bringing in $ good Bill, which would have hast with support from the country generally. He thought the amount to be lent under the Bill should be greatly reduced, and various safeguards should have been introduced. Success cr failure depended wholly on the lending Board, and if that Board did net act with the utmost caution it could not possibly succeed. The rate of interest had been fixed too low to pay expenses. Major Steward agreed with thegeneral policy of the Bill and he should be glad when it was passed into law.

Mr T. Mackenzie contended that the Colonial Treasurer had no right to borrow money in the colony for this purpose, as it was required to develop trade anot corn* merce. He held that but for the interference of the Government the rates of interest would have been reduced in the ordinary way by the operations of trade, Mr Lang said this was a very different Bill as compared with the proposals placed before the country at the last election. He thought the maximum under the Bill was altogether too high. Mr Massey also spoke against the Bill, Mr Eaenshaw said the proposals of the late Mr Macandrew in 1885 for assisting struggling settlers would be of more advantage to the colony than the present proposals. He complained that the House could not get any definite statement from the Colonial Treasurer as to who would have to pay the mortgage tax. If a ballot could be taken in the House he was quite sure that the Bill would be thrown out by an overwhelming majority. He hoped that the Upper House would refuse to pass the Bill.

Mr O’Regan said it was erroneous to suppose that this was a Bill to assist struggling settlers. A man who b*d sSSOOO worth of security to offer could not be considered a struggling settler. He denied that the country had expressed Its concurrence in the Bill, and : would ‘vote against it. In the course of his reply. The Hon J. G. Ward said there was, no attempt on the part of the Government to prevent reasonable amendments being made in committee, but it did object to amendments being brought dowathat night without notice. If all classes of the community were included in the Bill the scheme must break down. As to the late Me Macandrew's proposala in 1885, he pointed out where they were inferior to the present scheme. He again repeated that it was not intended to pay more than 81 per cent for this money. He pointed out that the provision exempting borrowers under this Bill from the operation of the Bankruptcy Act, placed Grown debtors in the same position as they were before 1892, It was quit# right that the Grown should have priority, because the State should be in a secure position. As to the mortgage tax, that would be paid by the mortgagor per sa, but in case he was not liable the superintendent would have to provide the mortgage tax. (Sir R. Stout: That is not in the Bill.) Mr Ward went on to say that the Public Trust Office and the Government Life Insurance Department could not meet the. demands of the settlers of the country for loan money, and the Government was desirous that these departments should lend more to private individuals than to the State. He instanced three letters received from Auckland congratulating him upon this scheme. He also read an opinion from the London Timet in support of the scheme, with the condition that it was administered with caution. The Government had made th# Bill as safe as possible, and its proposals were entirely different from the borrowing usually carried on in this colony, He expressed his Arm and solemn conviction that no measure ever introduced in this colony would do so much to 'add to its prosperity as this Bill. The motion for the third reading was carried by 36 to 11, and the Bill passed. The House rose at 1.20 a.m.