NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8294, 24 September 1903, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tnc Council met at 2.30 p.m. l"h« Wellington Harbor Board Empowering Bill was reported from Committee with. Copyright Bill passed its Hulrangi Domain and Huirangi Institute Empowering Bill was read a second tD The State Fire Insurance Bill was further considered in Committee. . Mr A Lee Smith had a series of amendment to propose in the clause relating to Sfe sinking fund and the appbeatam of profits, but on its being pointed out by tiie\ttorney-G-=neral that nart of the clauses related to appropriation wmc>- the Council was unable to deal with, Mr Lee Smith withdrew his amendments, and the remain■nrr clauses passeii. . - The Bill wa7 reported as previouslj amended. . . -, n ™ The Council adjourned at 4.30 p.m.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

3: sas*^"" 4 "- the Ac, Amendment •Bill the New Zealand Institute Bill, and fhe Native Land Laws Act Amendment Bill, were Educed by governor's Message a^lSV J^etf 8 Act Amendment thePrViieges Committee ih regard to the who is one of its Parlia c'omnUtte; Sl q not alle to inform the House STbtoiSson by whom the information was tofaEed to Mr Schwabe,.or as to the manner in which he became possessed of it. "Committee, therefore,, are of opinion ttottte witness is guilty of contempt, and they recommend that he.be fined £ls, and that in future in any similar case a witness £ offending be disqualified from oceu-m-in- a seat hi the Press gallery of the &. As regards the New Zealand Times newspaper, your Committee recommend that thi publisher be With respect to the case of the Lytteiton Tim«, *f»port says :-'<Your Committee considered the correspondence referred to than, and were of opinion that it was riot, necessary to call evidence thereon the facts bein" sufficients disclosed by the correspondence in question. Although a breach of privilege had been committed, they are of opinion that in view of the whole circumstances, the case will be met by cautionin- the editor as to the necessity for exercising greater care in future m regard to the publication of information which by reasonable inquiry would have been discovered to bs of a confidential and privileged

nature." . 'the Premier moved that the report ot th» Committee be adopted, and the recommendations contained therein be given effect to He said that probably members would think if the Privileges Committee had erred at all it was on the side of leniency in respect to the amount of the fine recommended but seeing that in a former case the fine was onlv £ls, the fine practical v amounted to £4O, for the newspaper would ro doubt pay the (reporter's fine. The Committee thought that, as far as the reporters were concerned they were in tiie Parliamentary Press gallery at the pleasure of the House, and such being the case he thought that the recommendation of the Committee would have- a salutary effect. In the course of the evidence it had been cleariv ascertained tliat neither the paper nor the reporter had seen the original document, so that the inference was tliat the information liad been culled from the orieinal documents and placed somewhere where the reporter got it, or it was given to him. TiioVitP.ess wh'> was contumacious could liave been brought before the bar of the House. Whatever there was in the cede of honor the observance of which prevented the reporter divulging tTTi source of his information, whilst commending it, at the same time, the House would not allow its rubs to be treated with contempt, and tinder the circumstances the House would do well to adopt the Committee's report. The Premier's motion was agreed to on the voices without, debate. In reply to auestions, Ministers stated that the Government intended to uphold the action of the military authorities in suspending Captain Fisher, of Christchurch; that- it was intended this session to ask for an increased Education building grant for reeentlv settled districts; that the Government would consider the advisability of placing an export duty on all kauri gum; that preserved eggs were being imported from China, but*were subjected to 20 per cent. duty.

\Vh»n the quest-inns on the Order Paper had disposed of. the adjournment of the House was moved by Mr Taylor, and a discussion took place on various subjects opened up by the questions. The- House rose at 5.30 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. The following; Bills were read a second

t::r.e pro forma : —The Trade Monopolies Prevention Bill, the Land Act Amendment Bill, the Land Bill, and the Crown Tentnts Rant Rebate Act Amendment Bill. The first-named Bill was referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee, and the others to the Lands Committee.

The adjourned debate on the motion for trie second reading of the Coastwise Trade Biil was resumed" by the Hon. W. HaH•Tor.es. He slid that"it might be urged that ;-h; House should wait until the trade of the colony liad been developed to a larger ex-t.-nt before it passed a P.;'!! cf this kind, but his view was that if the colony was ioing to preserve their trade to British -•hips the necessary legislation should be" p.iss-fd when our trade was on a eompara--;v«-Iy small scale. He quoted figures to

-'low that foreign seamen _were gradually creeping into our mercantile service, and Dr'ir.ted to the dancer of British ships being tV/.vf as training.ground for sailors belonging ro foreign nations who might some day be

;>t war with us. It had be?n contended that rhe Bill would detrimentally affect the San Francisco service, but ht-_ held that that not so. On the last- twelve trips the .San Francisco steamers had not taken an ounce of cargo from Auckland to Sydney. The Bill did not affect the passenger traffic on the San Francisco service. Mr Duthie said that the Bill was the fit st instalment of the sreat- Imperial policy d vised at the r?cent Premiers' Conference, but in the face of our existing shipping laws h -1 could rot see any necessity for it. He supposed tliat- the Bill would p?ss the House. The Premier got all sorts of stupid tilings through on time, but ijj bad to be referred to the Imperial authorities; and he did not believe that they wotdd give their assent to it. It would be a dead letter on the Statute Book, and it was little short of a farce. Mr Bedford considered that Jthere were very many irravo objections to the Bill. Neither the Premier nor the Hon. Mr HallJones had adduced any arguments in favor :of it. It had not been shown that the colonv's coastwise, trade was in any way beins harassed by the small amount of shipping done by foreign vessels. He believed that the motive for the Bill was to be found in the sentiment of Imperialism, of which th? Premier was such a renowned exponent. The whole history of Great "Britain was conclusively against the colony embarking, on the policy" contained in this Bill, and we were bringing the colony into, utter contempt by. always trying to lead the Empire. Mr Millar regarded the Bill as one of the -most important measures that had ever been introduced in the House. . He believed in the theory of New Zealand for 2few Zealanders, and objected to the colony being made a domping.market for the- world. Prevention was better .than cure, and on that score alone the Bill was justified. The shipping trade.m the colony was already bing. handicapped by foreign comp;t!ior> .who had entered "into the Jvaipara timber trade. If it waa to create' a mercantile marine in this colony, it could onlv be done.by.passing'J. law of this kind, for if we allowed freetrade to foreign vessels it would bethe doom nf our own trade. Ho heartily supported the Bill. , Mr Barber 6poke in favor of the Bill. Mr Hogg said. that the trade of the colony was growing rapidly year by year, and there was nothing to warrant, the jntroduc*;on of a Bill of thu k'mL It was S pettifogging and un-English Bill, and of-

fered a direct insult to other countries.

tries. . . Mr 'Willis expressed disappointment that passengers as well as cargo were nob included in the Bill. The same regulations should prevail as on American vessels. He was strongly in favor of the Bill. tMr Thomas Mackenzie said that the Union Company had been driven out of the trade between Honolulu and San Francisco by the American shipping laws. America had never extended to the colony the slightest trade concessions, and the time had arrived when the colony should take steps to protect itself. Mr Taylor said that this was a ridiculous Bill. Like several other proposals that had come from the Premiers' Conference, it was the beginning o f ° • policy of retaliation which wa wer 1 'uj believe was to be the very basi* tue Empire's greatness. If the Bill passed the charter of every vessel that left America for New Zealand would be 25 per cent, higher for freights. The Bill was an indication of cowardice. The Hon. Mr M'Gowan -said that the colony was a protective colony, and it was a true policy to protect the shipping. What did we pass labor laws for if seamen were not to gain any advantage from them ? , Mr Wilford asked why New Zealand should not retaliate for the navigation laws of America, German", and Prance? He would vote for any measure that would prevent the trade of the colony being carved to pieces at the sweet will of foreign countries without the colony having some species of retaliation.

Mr Sidey, in supporting the Bill, said that New Zealand had internal restrictive legislation, and to render this'effective it was necessary to also have external restrictive legislation. The Bill was in keeping with the progressive legislation of the colony. iMr Witheford hoped the colony would not be ltd info a false position in this matters. He urged the cultivation of friendly relations with America. He spoke at some length in support of the ;San Francisco mail service.

Mr Laurenson said that the Bill simply proposed to do to others what others were doing to us, and it was a Bill that any wise statesman would endeavor to place on the Statute Book. Great Britain originally built up a great commerce under a nolicy which closed her ports for coastwise trade against foreign ships. • .Mr Herdman pointed out that no other .part cjtf the British Empire had thought it fit or proper to pass a measure on the lines now proposed. Mr Buddo considered that the Bill.was necessary to protect our trade. He regarded it as a first instalment of a jjreat scheme to conserve British trade within the Em- j flire. Mr Major thought it was fortunate that New Zealand was taking the initial step in a new departure of this kind. Mr Ell nod no sympathy with the spirit of retaliation which was underlying the Bill. It was the generosity and liberality of Britain that had won for her the positicn she held to-day. ■Mr Lewis objected, to any restriction whatever being placed on our shipping trade, inward or outward. Mr M'Nab supported the Bill, but would vote in Committee for the excision of the clause prohibiting ships taking goods from oco colony to another. Mr Kirkbride condemned the Bill, and described it a 6 a continuation of the cry for the. erection of a tariff wall around New Zealand.

Mr Eeid and Mr Rhodes opposed the Bill, and Mr Baume, Mr Remington, and ■Mr E. G-. Allen supported it.

The Premier, in replying at 1 a.m., said tliat certain members liad failed to realise the responsibility cast on them. The gross ignorance displayed regarding file laws of our own and other countries had proved annoying. Every conceivable subject under "the sun had been dragged into the discussion. The resolution of the Premiers' Conference in favor of a "Bill of this kind was adopted aftet mature consideration of ihe whole question. The question 6hould have been approached by the House on broad and general grounds for the good of the colony and the Empire, and apart altogether from party ; but instead of that they had a debate which was a disgrace to the records of Parliament.. He said that advisedly. In justification of the Bill he mentioned* tliat- while British and New Zsaland vessels were bid up, American vessels wore doing the-timber trade from Whangaroa, Mongonui, and Kaipara. In replying to Mr Bedford's criticisms of the Bill, lie caid tliat the lion, gentleman had struck a severe blow at the tI.S.S. Company. On a division the second reading was carried by 51 votes to 16 votes. The following is the division list: — Ayes (31)— E. G. Allen, Barber, Bennett, Buddo, Carroll, Colvin, Davey, Duncan, Flatman, Hall-Jones, Heke, Houston, EJdd, Lawrv, Major. M'Gowan, M'Lachlan, MTSab, Mills, O'Meara, Parata, Remington, Seddon. Smith, Steward, Symes, Tanner, Wilford, Willis, Witty, and Wood. Xoes (16)— Bedford* Ell, Fisher, W. Eraser. Hardy, Herries, Kirkbride, Lang, Lethbridge, Lewis, Mander, Massey, Rhodes, J. W. Thomson, Vile, and Witheford.

Pairs—For the Bill: Field, Ward, J. C. Thomson, A. L. D. Fraser, Hanan, Graham, Roid, Laurenson, Baume, Sidey, Millar, Arnold, and Hall. Against the Bill: Aitken, Jas. Allen, Moss, Bollard, Taylor, Alison, Russell, Fowlds, Harding, Herdman, Duthie, Buchanan, and Hogg. Tlie House rose at 1.40 a.m.