HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10589, 5 September 1896, Page 6

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

.FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4. . The House-met at 230 p.m. AN INVITATIONJ The SPEAKER read an invitation tc mem--bers of tho House to attend -the opening of the FalmersSpn North Industrial Exhibition on Monday next. BBPIIES TO'QD-ESTIONS. Replying to Mr Hogg, The-Hon. Mr CADMAN said the Govern*" ment could not at present further reduce the freight for dead meat by rail, as they were Already very low. Replying to Mr W. Hutchison, The Hon. T. THOMPSON said a scheme of superannuation for ihe police force of the colony wu now engaging his attention. > Replying to Mr'-.Mackenzie, The Hon. J. M'KENZIE said nothing would be done m the direction of permitting settlers to occupy land free for a specific period immediately following the commencement of their lease, -I

Replying to Mr Lawry, . The Hon. Mr SEDDON said he was aware extortionate charges had been made by legal adTisers on the Native race, and he thought someone rionld be specially appointed to fix legal fees and charges to Natives. Replying to Mr Flntaaan, The Hon. J. M'KENZIE said every possible precaution had been token to prevent the introduction of Qoeeu.«lr.nd ticfe into the colony.

Replying to Mr O'Regan, The Hon. Mr CADMAN said tha question of appointing separate inspectors for gold, coal, and coal mine** would bave to be faced, and ou the West Coast somerhing of that kind would bave to be done.

Replying to Mr Flatman. The Hon. Mr CARBOLL said tie electoral rolls just printed will not be used at the next election, but will be iu force meanwhile.

Eeplying to Mr Flatman, The Hon. Mr CARROLL said it w.iuld not be necessary to re-registor where the boundaries have been altered, as the. resiofriar of electors would transfer the names from one roll to another without application being made from the electors.

Replying to Mr Hogg,

The Hon. J. M'KENZIE said the question of the. effect on meat intended for export of travelling live stock for long distanses by road and rail immediately before they are killed is new before the Stock Committee.

Eeplying to Mr Firani, The Hon. J. M'KENZIE said he was informed that the amendments of the Land Drainage Act was not required to enable beards ! to divide tbeir -■-M-ri-ls ■ au_ redistribute leprelentation when necessary. Eeplying io.Mr T. Mackenzie,.. The Hon. Mr SEDDON said the Government had no intention whatever of offering ■_ bonus Df £1 per ton to any company erecting works in New Zealand for the manufacture of iron and iteel from New Zealand iron ore, as tha business Df the colony should be quite sufficient without mybonns. , ~ ■ 7.. ' -.' . . Mr EARNSHAW-moved the sojournment of the HouEe upon the refusal of the Minister for Lands to give him certain information contained io a notice of motion respecting the land tax. . , , Mr BUCHANAN thought the persistono refusal of the Government of financial information to members of <*be House was one of the most sariou" questions they had to consider, as without that information members could not So their duty to their constituents. Messrs Hogg, Firani, M'Kenzie, Long, O'Began, E. M. Smith, and Ward spoke on the motion for adjournment. The Hon. J. M'KENZIE resented Mr Earnshaw charging Ministers with usurping tbe Treasury benches, and said that so long as they had the confidence of the House nobody could Bay they were usurpers. He said the cry for returns asked for by sonie members-could never be satisfied. ...

The debate* was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.

EVENING SITTING,

The House resumed at 7.30. LAW PRACTITIONERS EtIX. Mr G. W. RUSSELL moved that the amendments made by'the Legislative Council in the Female Law Practitioners Bill be agreed to by the "House. The only alteration made by the Council was to make the enrolment of fem*les the principal feature of the bill, instead of Sowing them to practise as it wag-originally proposed.—Agreed to. * BATING. The Rating Act Amendment Bill was comButted. ■' _■ .«_ Clause 2, procedure for the recovery of the •fates on Native lahd where ownys or occupier-i exceed four.—Dr Nkwman took exception to thia clause.—Tha Hon. Mr Seddon ssid he lhould report progress on the bill in order to give time to consider seme new amendments he proposed to move in it. After some discutjion, the- motion for reporting progress was tarried. SUHMAKX SBTABATION. The Hon. Mr SEDDON moved the second reading of the Separation Bill to amend thp . Jaw relating to the summary jurisdiction of magistrates in referenco to married persons. He.«*~d thebill provided for a long felfc want— namely, that married women may apply to the Bouiti -t OX' BHljaMtiott'- under certaia_i;ircam*i

stances, such as in the case of a woman whose husband shall have been convicted of aggra--vated assault on her, or who has been guiltv of desertion, or persistent cruelty. He'said that every safeguard had been put in the bill, which had .been passed by the Legislative Council. He waß in entire sympathy with the bill, and if carried, he felfc'sure ifc would prove beneficial. Mr R. THOMPSON thought a bill of this bind should be carefully considered. Under it a man had only to give his wife a thrashing in order to get a separation from her. Captain RUSSELL thought any bill having the effect of weakening the marriage tie would ba a'great; mistake. The inevitable result of passing, a law of this kind, which was supi posed to benefit women,-meant that women, would go to the wall instead of receiving any benefit.

Mr BELL said the bill did nofc permit divorce. It was almost ac exact copy of the English act,-and was meant to give separation in osrfcain cises to women.

Mr G. W.'RUSSELL said this was not one of those dreadfully advanced measures which Captain Russell so evidently dreaded. They were only copying that grand old couutiy which they were all proud to copy. Sir R. STOCJT supported the bill, and said Ui gave a magiskafco somewhat more power than in England. He hoped the bill would pass a? he saw no objectiiin to it. Mr WILLIS also supported the bill, and said when husbands were aware of the coneequonc** that .hould take place, if they ill-used their wives it would prevent that ill-usage. He thcughfc the tendency of the bill was in tho right '"direction. The", Hon. Mr SEDDON had thought there would have been no objection to the bill, and he wa'J siir-jrised afc Captain Russell's opposition to it. Ail the bill proposed" to do was to enable women to go to a magistrate for protection ag-iatt cruelty from her husband. . The motion wan thf-ri agreed to. "•"'"• A POVERTY BAY BILL.

Ths Poverty Bay Lands and Daeds Registration Districts Bill was committed. After a lengthy discussion, lhe bill passed through Committee. , ', '

The Hon. J., M'KENZIE:moved the second reading of the Fair Ifcnt, Bill, to . provide means for fixing a f*ir rent for land. He said he had introduced the bill last year, when, it pass-id its second n-siding", thereby confirming the view that tho bill was a. proper one to pass. He felt tntisfied that tbe House now was of opinion that a bill oi this kind should pass, aud he had no doub-i of tha fate'of the measure. He referred lo tho fact tbat a great many settlers who were intercstcdin ifc had forwarded favourable opinions on the bill, and the Government had had several, requests asking thera to introduce a measure of this ' kind. Tbere could be no doubt as to tho propriety and right of the Government' interfering in thia matter, and he held ths Government had a right to interfere with private tenants as well as Crown fcemnts id-a bill of this nature. In dealing with the question they had the example of Ireland and Scotland, in both of which the rights of tenants: were dealt with. They could not expect more rent from tenants than the land would yield, aod it would have to be considered by the board whether a tenant was or was uofc making the best use of his laud. He held that a fair rent should apply to all classes of property in the colony, and the colony could nofc be satisfied withanything less than that. The Governmeut did nofc. propose to interfere with leases except to fix the amount of reut, but that would not interfere wifch the tenure of a lease. 16 was quite unnecessary for him to go into the details of the measure as he had doue so fully last session. He was quite satisfied the bill was asked for by a iarga number of people in the colony, but he was also aware it was strongly opposed in some directions. It was proposed to appoint a board to fix a fair rent consisting of a stipendiary magistrate and two other members to be appointed by the Government. If thesecond reading oE tlie bill was agreed to it would affirm the principle of fair rent, and reasonable amendments could be made in Committee. The bill.was a new ■ departure in the colony, but he felfc convinced to would eventually become the law. :'.'■,' ■

Sir E. STOUT said this was the second occasioh tliis-Sossiob that Miuisters admitted their policy had broken down. Their financial and -public works policy had broken down, and now s. Minister was obliged to confess that the land'syatem of 1892, which was to give everybody security of tenure had broken down ; also that the Government had given a 999 years' lease to settlers, and four years later tbey had come down and wanted to appoint a bo»rd under their own control to alter the tenure and condition'of' those leases altogether. Why, tbis_ill completely broke down tae 999 years' lease, and he held if a ■ bargain was ms.de with people it was dishonest to break it. He held it was wrong to grant these leases, but having granted them to settlers it was dishonest to break tho contract. Tha conditions of the lease in perpetuity were that there should be no revaluation, but they were not only to ' have '._"' revaluation now. but iih annual' valuation. He criticised the bill at some length as affecting suburban lands and town, lands,- aud-.laid there was no principle in the bill aud nothing to guide the commissioners. The," bill/was [badly thought out, undigested, .'and badly--framethiiii every way.- It gave no relief whatever to the great mai's of the com; munityi .although some fanners might be benefited and some ihjuied by it. .'Kir .ALLEN said-when Mr "H'Keuzie toid them .tiiis .was.the first attempt at'a bill .'of ithis kind in the colony he must have forgotten 1885, when he (M/M'E-uizie) was io Opposition, and when'ho v held*a. different opinion on the bill that was"then brought iu. Leases id perpetuity had bein .takeu up for 999 years, and yet'.the Government now proposed to revalue the leases every oue or two.years, which showed that the lease in perpetuity was an entire failure. Mr M'Kenzie had stated that bo cent a circular to 200 local bodies, and only 91 had replied, and on that he hud.basell hia argument in favour of the bill/ This biil absolutely destroyed security of tpiiure. He quoted from Mr M'Kenzie'g speech ia 1888, when he stated thafc the Fair R;r\t Biil was dangerous -snd went too ~farj although the bill of 1888 applied to Grown tenants, whereas the present bill applied to "every class of tenants and to all classes of property. Ths bill was brought forward to satisfy a few grievances, but it would injure the great mass of the people, and was not in the interests.of the tenants. He hoped the Hobse'would reject the sscb-V.d reading.

7 Mr T. MACKENZIE said it was singular that a bill of this kind should not have "a single word of support from anyone oa the Government side except the Minister for Lands. Hehad supported the second reading of the bill last year in order that the Governmeut might. be able to deal with its own tenants. He was not bo blind an opponent o: the Government as to vot? against a measure: "i.'hisn contained principles -""ith which he agreed m order thatthe good portioi- .)f thu bill might be passed and thb bad. pprtipi! eliminated. Mr M'Kenzie had referre*". toiScitlaud and Ireland in support of the present aieasure, but they had to deal with this-e'oloify, aud not with the old country. He should support the second re-ding, of the bill, not that he bslieved in its principle, but because ne thought the Government should I have the right to. deal with its own tenants.

Mt COLLINS wonld also support the bill, whioh hrt considered provided for periodical revaluation, although the Minister for Lands, was opposed to that. It appeared to him that the treud of the bill was not in an improper direction, and it simply endeavoured to gi*"ttenants a fair rent, flu objected to the proposed "ooi.rd on the grounds that boards appointed by the Oovernm'eut were not satisfactory. Be should vote for the bill because he wanted to briog about a fair rent.

Mr MONTGOMERY said the main objections that applied last year . also applied to, tbe present bill. He did not think the prasent bill would give a fair rent at all, and would cause a great deal of injustice. He .hoped, however the bill would get into Committee, besause he believed it could" bs pastad through, probably not tbis session.. ......

Mr DUNCAN supported the bill, and replied to several arguments urged against it. He considered Sir K. Stout's contention that a fair rent Bhould be the rent obtained at auction could be no rent at all

Mr BUCHANAN moved the adjournment of the debate.—Agreed to. The House rose at 12.50 a.m.