HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15823, 23 July 1913, Page 6

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The House met at 2.30 p.m.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE,

Leave of absence was granted as follows:—On account of illness: Mr Reed, four days; Mr Veitch, four days; Mr Myers, 10 days; Mr Brown, four days; On account of private business Sir J. G. Ward was granted 10 days' leave, Mr Bollard five days, and Mr Lee two day 6. PENSIONS BILI, The Pensions Act Amendment Bill was introduced by Governor's Message. Mr RUSSELL said he looked with anxiety towards a Bill introduced by Mr Fisher", owing to knowing the quarter from which it came. Mr Fisher had declared that the Act, which was now on the Statute Book, was directed against thrift. ) I the Government dared, it would remodel the Act and make the pension universal, and so break the whole thing down. Owing to the enormous cost it would break down lhe present munificent scheme of providing for tlie comfort of old people m their declining sge. The Hon. Mr FISHER said Mr Russell did not know what was in the Bill. He did list propose to review the Bill at the nresent juncture, but he would say that the Bill provided .for pensions for women of 60 years of age of £21; 61 years, £22; 62 years. £23; 63 years, 3j24 ; 64 years, £25; and 65 years, £26. Mr Russell had taunted him with not having sympathy f or the present pensions system, nor had ne. A man who had 6aved money was penalised and a spendthrift was encouraged. Another provision was to pay £36 for the war medallists, regardless of the property owned. The Bill was drafted on the true principle which should obtain milt through the pension system. If a mail •were a bona-fide fesident of the country for 40 years he was entitled to apply for a pension, providing he had resided in vhe country for 12 months prior to the application being lodged. Another improvement on the old" laws was that miners' relief fund amounts were not calculated as n\enme. The measure would tend to liberalise the pension scheme more so than anv previous legislation had done. .Mr WITTY said the Government dared not bring in a universal pension schema, because, tbev would have to impose such a heavv land tax to pay for the scheme that its taxed friends would speedily object.

Mr YOUNG protested against _ parly bickerings in connection with humanitarian legislation. Such things should not militate against the provision of pensions for the old pioneers of the country. Mr J. C. THOMPSON said lie hoped an invalidity clause would be incorporated in the Bill. PENSIONS RECIPROCITY BILL. The Pensions Reciprocity Bill was introduced by Governor's Message.

The Hon. Mr FISHER explained that the Bill ratified the agreement between him and the Premier of the Commonwealth in the matter of old-age pensions. The Bill provided for people who had lived in either New Zealand or Australia for 12 months prior to making the application, and they had to submit to the conditions

existing* in whichever State or country they applied from. The liability for each country would be computed on a population basis. New Zealand would pay oneseventh, of each pension granted. Both Bills were read a first time. ARBITRATION BILL. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act Amendment Bill was passed through committee unamended and was read a third time. POLICE FORCE BILL. The Hon. Mr HERDMAN moved the second reading of the Police Force Bill. He said the Bill was necessary owing to the present Act having become obsolete. The Bill dealt mainly with appointments to tile force, the powers of commissioner, inquiries as to breaches of duty by members of the force, and the dismissal of members. 'Provision was made preventing any member from taking part in general' elections. A board of appall, was to b: set up comprised of a magistrate nominated by the Minister, an officer of the force senior or equal ;n rank to the .appellant, and some other person not be_ing a member of the force. The board would deal with appeals from anyone not being satisfied with the Jesuit of inquiries. Witnesses at inquiries might be summoned and examined on oath, jt way absolutely necessary, said the Minister, in the interests of discipline that the Minister of the day should remain in absolute control.

Mr HAN AN contended that it was not right to have men in the ."-ervice Who were over 65 years of age while the superannuation scheme existed. If it were allowed to continue the blocking of promotion would continue. Commissioner Tunbr;d<ie had acted oil the report of the Royal Commissioner, and had retiicd men ;i[ 65 year.s. Up till March the provision had remained in the regulations, but in the new regulations it was dropped. He objected to the provisions in the Bill for arrist without warrant. Supreme Court judges had spoken against it. The stigma ui being in gaol might rest on a man wliose case would be dismissed when investigated. . He thought the appeal clause did not go far enough. The appellant should be informed ot the composition of the board 14 days before the hearing of a ca-.se. The punishment tor corruption should be more drastic than what was propped. He objected to the giving 'of rewards to officers, and said that special service-, could be recognised in other ways. He hoped the Minister would not be tco much influenced by reports as to the work.ng of the Police Force Acts in Australian States, but that lie would set himself to bring in a really comprehensive measure which would benefit the whole service.

Mr WITTY complained that the Minister had simply read out the clauses,of the Bill and had not explained them to the House. He agreed that there should be grades for officers. Senior men should be better paid than newel' members of the force. He also agreed that no constable should take an active part in politics, but the fine provided in the Bill (a maximum of £100) was quite out ot proportion to any offence which might be r committed. He 'disagreed with the power of veto vested in the Minister in '.onnectinn with the Appeal Board, and also with tlie provision for constables passing examinations. He could not' see the justice m" asking an old constable who had not received "the education which was to tasily obtained in these days to sit for ail examination.

The Hon. Air HERDMAN, in reply, said the criticism by the Opposition would receive his whei? the Bill got into committee, He could' say that there were no officers in the force who were over 65 years of age. Mr HAN AN : There will be in a few years. Continuing, Mr HERDMAN said that constables were in receipt of .the .equivalent of 9s 6d per day. 'lhe rawest recruit iu the streets received that amount. He was paid 8s per day, and if he was maTried fie was allowed 10s 6d per week for house allowance. The men were allowed £5 per year towards boots and the making of uniforms. They could not increase the pay at present. An increase of 6d per day would cost about £10,000 a year, and an* increase of Is aoout £20,000. The increase they were making should cost I £4200.

.The Bill was read a second time. ' POLICE Ol<-FENCES BILL. ] The Hon. Mr HJiUDMA.N moved the , second reading of the Police Offences Bill. | Any constable may under the provisions | uf the Bill take into custody any pt-rson for drunkenness, using threatcningabusive language, negligent ariving, prostitution, then, or loitering. Provision is made , also for inflicting a summary penalty for unlawful intimidation or violence, with a j view to restricting the freedom of any person. The Minister explained that the clause was necessary in cases whore parsons were intimidating others and making their lives miserable. Mr BUDUO said some of the dauics w : ere outrageous and were not to le found outside of Russia. If some of the clauses were passed the police would become omnipotent, Under the Bill -lany injustices could be done. Citizens weie not too redely to appear before, the court and get their names in papers while fighting their own cases, and they mostly paid a fine and got out. Mr WITTY contended that the measure was the effort of a weak Government or a weak Minister. Instead of creating peace the Minister would ereate riot if the Bill came into force. Surely, he said, no Minister should give the police the powers proposed. A man could be arrested anywhere at the sweet will of a policeman. They might as well go to the extent they did in the Cook Islands and compel everyone to carry a light after dark. The Bill was not meant to deal with an ordinary person, but aimed at creating industrial strife. It was far too drastic altogether. There was someone besides the Minister behind it. Mr ROBERTSON said that if any unbiased opinion was offered concerning the Bill it' would be found to be a piece ot class legislation. The summary powers oi arrest proposed would not be found in any other country. Sections of the Bill were brought into- existence in England in 1875 and were amended again in 1905. so that we were adopting a law winch was created some 35 years ago and amended seven years ago. The Bill did away absolutely' with peaceful picketing during industrial unrest. He was convinced that the provisions of the Lill would never be enforced except in times of industrial dispute. Picketing was made local in England because it-was seen that its prohibition tended to create lawlessness rather than peace. Mr WILFOBD agreed with the principles of the Bill. He thought that most offences were provided for. He did regret that a limit of three months] imprisonment was contained in the Bill, because it prevented'anyone charged with any-ot the offences in the Bill from being tried before a jurv of his fellow beings. Dealin" with the powers conferred upon the police, he submitted that it took more than three* civilians to outs.vear a policeman in the courts. He objected to the word "reputed" being contained in .the Bill in connection with idle persons and others. , „ Mr HINDMARSH said some of the proposals in the Bill were unknown in the British Empire or, he might venture to say, in any part of the world. He asked for a definition of the provision that "any idle person whom a constable has reasonable cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit any offence or of any evil designs." A magistrate, on tlie morning after arrest, might na\;e the ! greatest . difficulty in determining' the charade; 1 and colour of a man s mind the night before. —(Laughter.) Mr Russell submitted that the Minis'.er 1 had brought in an entire clause of the [ Imperial legislation of 1875 dealing with industrial disputes, and had entirely ignored the verv material modifications of 1 1906. He thought the Bill aimed at pub- ' lie meetings and free speech. The whole thing was the outcome of whatsis known as the clock-tower disturbances in Christ-

church. Mr HERDMAN: Nothing of the sort. Mr RUSSELL asked if the House'was prepared to affirm legislation which would allow the police to invade a. public meeting and indiscriminately arrest any of those congregated. Mr HERnMAN : They can do it now.

Mr RUSSELL: I refuse to bow to the lecal knowledge of the ..iinister. He held that the greatest heritage of the people was free speech. It was better to overstep the mark, whether the Government, the policc, military, or any other body was under criticism, than to stifle free sneech altogether. This Bill undoubtedly aimed at that.

Mr M'CALLUM said lie must vote against the Bill, the provisions of which were far too drastic.

Mr PAYNE said the Bill was the most inimiitons measure ever introduced in n civilised community. He labelled two clauses of the Bill as Waihi clauses. An attempt was being made to take from the' workers the only little bit of liberty that remained to them. Mr M'KERZIE said that more could be done by the law of reason than by the provisions of the Bill. He wondered whether the Bill aimed ■at gagging the people and preventing freedom of speech. He was convinced that the people of the country would be opp-sed to the Bill. The' Hon. Mr HERDMAN, replying, said that misconception evidently_ existed regarding the Bill, which was designed *o allow the people to go about their business peacefully. He contended that the language'of the Billwas plain. What did it matter, lie asked, if the English Bill of 1875 was amended? It was necessary that the provisions of that Bill should be incorporated in the New Zealand statutes for the protection of property and society. He traversed Mr Russell's statement that the Bill aimed at the suppression of public meetings in or out of Christchurch. The clause referred to was already in the Police Offences Act. If there was any difference between the present and the proposed law it was slight. It seemed to him that the object of the Opposition was to prevent increased protection to the people in the ordinary way. Cries of No!" Mr, HERDMAN: That is the only reasonable inference to draw. The only inference to . draw from Mr Robertson's speech was that he desired disorder and anarchy. Mr ROBERTSON: Try to be fair for once. Mr .HERDMAN said that what nad taken place at Waihi had rendered it necesliarv ta incorporate in the Bill provisions which would render a repetition impossible. The Government was obliged to protect the people wlio desired to go about their business in a reasonable way. He was confident that if the Bill was placed upon the Statute Book, instead of causing riots as suggested, men could go about without fear, .and the police could do their dutv Inore satisfactorily. A division was called for on the motion for the second reading, and it resulted as follows: —Ayes, 37 ; Noes, 22. Mr lIKRDaiAN then asked leave to refer the Bill to the 1 Statutes Revision Committee, and this was granted.

AMENDMENTS INCORPORATION BILL. The House then went into committee on the Amendments Incorporation Bill, which was passed throiwh unamended. The Bill wa.'i then read a third time and passed. The House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.