N.Z PARLIAMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2164, 15 August 1895, Page 20

N.Z PARLIAMENT.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7.

In the Legislative Council this afternoon tho Employers' Private BeneOfc S <ciety Bill was thrown out, and the Propeitj Law Consolidation Bill was passed. THEEIIPI.OTKRB' PBIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETY BILL.

The Hon G MVLEAN said the bill was really one to extinguish the Uuion Company's benefit society. He might mention that if a man belonged to another benefit society the Union Company did not call upon him to join the company's society. It was uafair to hare these repeated attaoks made upon the Union Company, which was a company every colonist should be proud of. The shareholders did not mike so much out of their capital as Home people supposed. In the very best year the company only paid 8 per cent., and the dividend had fallen so low as 1 per cent , and last year vras only 2 per cent. Tho present Government s emed to be determined to do their be»t to hamper the Union Cjmpany. They were welc ime to inspect the books of the company's benefit society, which was managed by the rar-n themselves and nob by the company. The company at the present time were paying £1 per month more to their seamen, &c. than wad paid to similar men iv Australia ; but he warned the Government that if the company were to be badgered as the Government were at present badgering them the Union Company would engage their hands in Australia, which would be to the benefit of the Union Company. In his opinion a grant deal of false sympathy had been expressed for " poor Jack," whilst no sympathy was ever evinced by the Legislature in favour of poor commercial clerks, whose really only privilege waa to wear a good coat whilst they received less remuuerabion than " poor Jack." If the bill passed, the only thing 'for capitalists would be to button up tfeeir pockets and allow the men to do the best thoy could for themselves.

Tho Hon. Mr BOLT supported the motion for the second reading of the bill, which he maintained was truly a Liberal measure, and provided for liberty of contract. On very good authority he was informed that if a man in the employ of the Union G<. rapany insured in another society refused to j >in the company's benefit society, he was virtually shunted. The second reading was lost by 20 to 10.

In the House of Representatives to-day, after seme formal business, including notice of a motion expressing dissatisfaction with the tariff, the flmncial debate was resumed, but not concluded.

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION,

A bill to amend the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitrat'on Act, introduced by the Hon. W. P. Rseves, has been circulated. It provides that an employers' union must consist of not less than five members, of whom individual partners shall count, and that a registered company may register as an industrial union of employers. Whenever an industrial dispute involves technical questions, two experts may be appointed representing each party, such experts to be assessors and to be deemed members of the court. Where a dispute relates to employment or wages, the court shall have jurisdiction for three months after the relations of employer and employed have terminated. If the bo&rd be not elected in the usual way, the Governor may appoiat as many members as m»y be necessary. The principal act is amended by substituting the word ** workers " for workmen and adding to section 13 the following paragraph : — " Such list shall specify the names of all the officials (including trustees) of each such association or union."

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE.

Mr E. M. SMITH resumed the debate on the Financial Statement, Messrs Allen and Buddo following.

Sir R STOUT referred to the peculiar conduct of tho present debate. They had a Financial Statement occupying an hour and three-quarters and a speech of another hour from the Treasurer, and yet they were asked to debate it in one hour, when it had already taken the Treacurer three hours to deal with it. That was a curious commentary on freedom of speech. He also referred to the refusal of the Government to lay certain returns asked for on the table, which he contended were absolutely necessary to enable members to discuss the Statement. The position of the Treasurer over the Budget was a most humiliating one. He had appointed an expensive commission to consider the tariff, and after bringing down his own tariff he had told the Housp they could alter it and do as they liked with it. He (Sir R. Stout) said the public debt was gradually ir.crensiug since 1891, and for four years the net debt had increased by £2 291, 1 09. The returns by the Tres surer were entirely misleading, and the actual petition was as he had stated. He deprecated the juggling by figures which whs now going on, and said tho position of the colony should be put fairly be F ore the House. He referred at considerabla length to the position of the public debt, and eaid it was utterly absurd to say tbab there had been any saving in interest and sinking fund charges. There was, on the contrary, an increase over last year of £14,155. Ho referred to the conversion operations, and cha>-actenfed them as bad financial operations, costing tho colony large sums in premiums, and adding largely to the permanent debt of the country. He cmtended that the Treasurer had illegally seized the sinking fund of the Local Bodies' Loam Act, and said the acb of 1891 referred to conversion, and did not refer at all to this sinking fund. The seizure of this fund, therefore, was ill gal, and not warranted by law. Respecting the surplus claimed by the Government, he said figures could prove anything, and it, was a question whether borrowed money was to be eliminated from the surplus or not, and also whether last year's eurplus was inoluded. If borrowed money and last year's surplus were excluded it would be found there was a deficit of £229,194. How, then, was the surplus of £180,000 obtained ? They had to carry over last year's surplus and money borrowed under the Naval and Military Settlers Act, and they had a surplus of £180,000. He did not say it waß wroDg to carry over last year's surplus, but if they were to leave that out and take the actual expenditure over receipts they would have a deficit of nearly a quarter of a million. He considered the Treasurer's proposal to collect the land tax permanently on the 17th August by act was entirely unconstitutional, as it would tike it out of the hands of the House altogether, so that the tax could be collected whether the House were sitting or not. Respecting the proposals in the Budget, there was an increase in taxation. Widows were to ba taxed and they were to have additional tariff duties. The tariff was not to encourage industries but to get revenue, mainly from the working classes, who had to pay the bulk of the taxation. Other proposals were treaties with Canada and South Australia. Had a single member of the Government ever read the Canadian tariff ? (The Hon. Mr Ward : " I have read it through from beginning to end.") He (Sir R, Stout)

wonld prove the opposite. Did the House know that the Canadian tariff put before them was not the latent one framed by that country. Ho had traced Canadian tariffs for the latt 12 or 14 years, and the real Canadian tariff and Mr Ward's tariff disagreed in important items, one of which was wool. He proceeded to compare the two tariffs (the real tariff and MrWard's tariff), which Bhowed a considerable difference. Wool, barley, organs, tallow, or any other items were different, and yet the Colonial Treasurer asked them to agree to a treaty with Canada which he (Sir R. Stout) regarded aa a perfect farca. They were to have additional burdens cast on them by mail services and by treaties. How were they to get the money P Simply by taxation. This was a taxing Budget. They were to get money by deceased persons' duties and taxing the workmen of this colony. He asserted that never before had they so many unemployed, and it was distressing to see men who wore willing to work depending on charitable aid. Could anyone say that the workers ■were belter off now than they wtra three year's ago ? Fe did not blame the Government altogether for thi?, but the Government had no right to say the workers were better off for their policy. There was nothing in the Budget bub increase of taxation and of our public debt What they wanted to practise was strict economy, and not reliance on the foreign money-lender. The more reliance they placed on foreign money-lenders, the greater injury would be done to tho people of the colony. The Budget was better than the last one, a3 there were not so many wild-cat propoßals ; but there was no light in it for reducing our public debt. It was a mere votecatching Budget, and was brought in by the Treasurer more with the idea of pleasing his party than the colony as a whole.

The Hon. Mr SBDDON said they had just heard an able speech from Sir R Stout greeted with applause by the enemies of the people. Judged by Sir R. Stout's works, however, and not by his expressions, it would be found that the work of the present Government was practical and progressive, and that the country would be perfectly sure in trusting the Government to administer their policy. Sir R Stout had complained of the hour limit to speeches, but he. had not lifted up his voice against that when the question was beFore the House. Sir R. Stout had complained of returns not being laid before the House, but he forgot to say that Mr Ward bad circulated the returns before the debate had b°gun. Sir R. Stout had stated that the securities were not in London at the time bis colleague stated they were, but it was not fair for him to prejudice a case which was now before the Public Accounts Committee, and which, from hie training, he must have known would not have been allowed in a court of justice. The hon. gentleman had stated that Mr Ward occupied a humiliating position over the tariff, but he was surprised at his obji cting lo a committee teiiig appointed. He (Mr Seddon) aknowl«dged the abili'y with which the Tariff Cuiiimission had perform«d its labours. The Government were not able to adopt all their recommendations, but the Treasurer was materially assisted in framing his tariff by the report of the commission. Tho fact was Sir R. Stout was endeavouring to sow discord amongst the members of the Tariff Commission, but they were not likely to be led away by that hon. gentleman. As for Sir R. Stout's remark about Mr Ward's humiliation, he (Mr Seddon) quoted from a speech made in 1887 by Sir R. Stout when, as Premier of the colony, he aiked the House to rescind » large number of items in the tariff. Who was humiliated then ? He would do Sir R. Stout the justice to pay he had not agreed to the proposal to abandon the tariff, but he allowed himself to be swayed by his colleagues, and the result was that the Liberal party received a blow that it did not recover from till the general election of 1890. If the Govtrnmeut found that a majority of the House wished a modification of certain items in the tariff they would not object, as they wanted the m*j..>rity to rule. He quoted from Hansard to chow that Sir H. Atliinson had acted in exactly the same way as the Government now proposed doing, and yet Bir H. Atkineou was not taunted by the Opposition as the Government wai now by Sic R. Stout. The member for Wellington had also referred to the increase of the public debt, but the fact was the Stout-Vogel Government had increased tha debt by £5 210,306 from 1884 to 1887, and the Atkinson Government had in three years increased it by £4,224,596. He said there wai a bright side to the picture, and pointed out th&t the net debt for the four yeara was increased by only £2,291.724 by the present Government, and the Government had something to show for it in the purchase of Native lands, military and naval settlements, Cheviot purchase, land for settlements, advances to settlers, consols, &c. He pointed out that the present Government had acquired a million acres of Native land, and would anyone say that they should not proceed with those Native land nm chases and land for settlement. He defended the sctirn of tho Government about the sir king fund, and said they were entitled by tha law passed by Sir 1&, Stout himself to the accretion of the sinking fund. Respecting the conversion operations, of which so much had b3on made, he said Sir R. Stout himself was responsible for that law, and every Government tock advantage of it. They were told that strangers we uld be misled by the Budget, but it was the people of tho colony they had to consider. They were not responsible to globatrotters. He 'undertook to say that Sir R. Stout could make out a mnch better case for the Government than agsinsfc them, but then he was not lfgal adviser of the Government. Referring agnin to the charge of seizing the sinking fund, would Sir R. Stout say that the Audi'or-general conspired with the Government to enuble them to take the sinking fond illegally? Tho thing was ab«urb. The Government only did what they were entitled to do by law. In all they did tjjjpy had the advice of those whose duty it was to advise them. R-specting the collection of the land tax, he said the Treasurer was right in fixing a time for the collection, and ha felt sure a majority of the members in the House would support that proposal, so that the credit of the colony should not be rained, and that money wonld be collected in time to send Home. He repudiated Sir R. Stout's assertion that Mr Ward had not read the Canadian tariff, and the workers of the colony would not be led away by the member for Wellington, as they were well aware what he was doing. If Sir R. Stout wished to criticise the policy of the Government let him do so as a statesman, and then he might do some good to the colony. The debate was continued by Mr George Hutchison and the Hon. W. P. Reeves, and then adjourned till the next day, the Houso risiog shortly after midnight.