PARLIAMENTARY.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXI, Issue 8832, 12 July 1905, Page 4

PARLIAMENTARY.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

The Legislative Council meb afc 2.30 p.m.

The Address-in-Reply. Mr M'Lean moved that the Council at its rising adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on account of to-morrow being Arbor Day. The motion was agTeed to. Mr Ormond resumed the debate on the Address-in-Reply, dealing specially with the land question. He adversely criticised the Land for Settlements Act, and looked upon the Lands Commission as a grave infringement of the- rights of Parliament. A question of this kind it was the duty of the Government to leave to the electors of the j colony,- and if they did not approve of the Government views then the Administration, should ■ give up the reins. The result of the Land Commission could only be in the direction of favoring the freehold tenure, and if . the Government accepted a Tenort at variance with its views, they would be giving! effect to a law in which they did not believe. He complained of the fictitious valuation put upon land by the Valuation Department, and declared that this would .result in misery when land showed depreciation. The method of purchase of land for settlement was carried out without thought, and: the people placed on these lands would in a time of depression and low prices be unable to meet their engagements. The colony would have to pay the racket. The lands which.. should' have been taken for settlement were the thousands of acTes of native -lands in the North Island which were lying waste.- There would have been -no-fear of trouble if the Government had properjy 'dealt with them. ' - Mr JorieSj in reviewing Mr Ormond's speech, twitted him' with never looking on the bright ei<fe of politics. Jcn»s)

defended the appontment of sha L&nd Commission. on the ground that the Parliament had a right to carry on its operations by any means it chose. Mr Ormond's party had set up a Commission to inquire into the Civil Service and on going out of office had destroyed the record. The position last session was that the Legislature did not know the feelingf of the' colony wit;; regard to land tenure.. He contended t'liai Crown tenants had only wanted security oi tenure, and it was the Tory Party that had led them to believe that their tenure was insecure, and thus raised the present agitation. He defended the Government's land for settlements policy, and declare;that if an effort were made tomorrow to set the Act aside, there would be a general out-cry for its retention. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr Holmes. The Council rose at 4.50 p.m.} until 2.50 p.m. on Thursda-y.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.50 p.m. Defence. The Premier gave notice to introduce the Australian and New Zealand Naval Defence Bill. Land' Commission. In reply to Mr .Massey, t-ho Premier said the Teport of the Land Commission liad gone to the Governor, and as soon as it was returned he would make an announcement to the House. Old Age Pensions. • The debate on the motion for the second Teading of the Old Age Pensions Bill was resumed by Mr J. C. Thomson, who UTgyd that if pensions were made universal, the incentive to fraud would be taken away. Now was the time for the creation of a special fund for the payment of the pension, so that- nothing should interfere with it in the future. His idea was to create a ■land reserve for the purpose- of raising the necessary revenue in the same way as reserves were set aside for educational purposes. Mr Hogg did not think tlie colony was in."a position to go in for a universal old age pension. He could not help thinking that underlying the suggestion for such a scheme was a desire to make the burden so heavy that tie colony would be unable to bear it. , •MTFraser pointed out that the Bill would raise the pension of those who had nothing and could earn nothing, but would not n. any way benefit those who had exerciseo thrift. , The Premier said that he proposed to raise the maximum income which coulc be earned by a person from £52 to £6O. Mr Taylor complained that the present system was productive, of a great volume of deceit and malpractice. He did not see why old age pensioners should have to transfer their homes to the Public Trusteibefore they could get a pension. There were an army of the thrifty and deser\ing old people in the colony who felt that they were the victims of a great injustice through this provision, and he gave typical instances of such cases. He did not believe the colony could stand the strain of universal pensions, but before they were as ridiculously generous as proposed in this Bill they should at least be reasonably just. •He moved the following amendment "That no Bill dealing with old age pensions will be satisfactory which fails to place the system on a more equitable basis by abolishing the penalties now imposed upon many thrifty and industrious old colonists, who, because they possess a home valued at £270, are deprived of a pension; and the House is of opinion that this injustice should be removed before the pension is increased." Mr Ell seconded the amendment. lie did not think the Bill was purely an electioneering movbmerit, and thought that the Premier was earnest in his proposal to increase the pension, but it would meet with general approval if the property qualification was done away with. The debate was interrupted by the dinner adjournment. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.

In reply to the Premier, Mr Massey said that he had not been consulted in regard to the amendment. Mr Wilford supported the Bill. Mr James Allen asked why the Premier had not brought down a contributory scheme? Such a scheme would be far better thali thß plesent one, as it would provide for all, while at present provision was only made for a few. The House should be guided by the principle that the colony should recognise thrift, and the area of the pensions should be increased, rather than the amount. This was imperative in the interests of those who had long been suffering a grave injustice. Sir J. G. Ward said that Mr Taylor's amendment was intended to kill the Bill. The amendment indirectly suggested that the nucleus of a universal pension schn r be placed on the Statue Book. A voluntary contributory system would be no good, without- a system such as we have now running side by side with it. Further, they would have to wait- ten years before putting it into operation, and if the country wanted to introduce a contributory scheme on a compulsory basis, let them pas 6 another Bill for that purpose. Mr Taylor's amendment meant that they must stop the Bill. They were going to makS a leap in the dark, and would break down the system by its own weight.

Mr Bedford said the object of the amendment was not to establish a universal pension, but to remove grievous disabilities from the holders of property. It would be time enough to increase the pension when that had been done. The carrying of the amendment did not necessarily mean killing the Bill. Mr Fisher supported the amendment. He urged that the Government should bring in a contributory scheme which should go hand in hand with the present system, and the latter had worked itself out of exist-ence.

Mr Major thought that no better use could be made of part of the surplus than in providing old age pensions. Mr Lang would vote for Mr Taylor's amendment. He had always favored a universal pension scheme on a contributory basis. Mr Barber supported the amendment. Mr Massey said he believed the time was coming when the price of butter would not be so high as at present, and when that state of things arrived the revenue of the country would be very seriously affected, and the additional burden it was now proposed to place in the country would very seriously cripple our finances in future. He twitted the Premier with inconsistency in that last year he voted against an amendment proposed by Mr Taylor raising the pension to 10s per week. The Premier said if the amendment was carried the Bill could not proceed. Anew Bill would have to be brought down. The old people could not contribute; this scheme must go on, and the only question was as to the amount of the pension. Had it been proved that the people were less thrifty than they were in 1898 when the original Act was passed? It was a moral impossibility to adopt a universal pension scheme. He told the country now that they could not adopt a universal scheme, and that to do so would mean a break down of the whole system. He was prepared to amend the Act so as to provide that applications for the pension should be heard in camera. The Premier defended the pension scheme, urging that it had as anticipated resulted in the reduction of expenditure on charitable aid, and that the regulations were merely a necessary safeguard and not an incentive to fraud, as had been declared.

After further debate Mr Taylor's amendment was negatived by 46 to 26, and the second reading was carried by 59 to 10. The following is the division list: For the amendment (26) —A'itken, Alison, J. Allen, Barber, Bedford, Buchanan, Duthie, Ell, Fisher, Fowlds, Harding, Hawkins, Herdman, Herries, Kirkbride, Lang, Laurenson, Lethbridge, Mander, Massey, T. Mackenzie, Moss, Rhodes, Taylor, J. \V. Thomson, Vile. Against the amendment (46) —E. 6. Allen, Arnold, Baume, Bennett, Buddo, Carroll, Colvin, Davey, Duncan, Field, Flatman, A. L. D. Fraser, Graham, Hall-Jones, Hanan, Hardy, Heke, Hogg, Houston, Jennings, Kidd, Lawry, Lewis, Major, R. M'Kenzie, M'Gowan, M'Lachlan, M'N'ab, Mills, 1 Parata, Pete, Reid, Remington, Rutherford, Seddon, Sidey, Steward, Symes, Tanner, J. C. Thomson, Ward, Wilford, Willis, Wood. Pairs: For the amendment, Bollard; against, Millar. J