THE WEEK IN PARLIAMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3774, 13 July 1926, Page 33

THE WEEK IN PARLIAMENT.

Noxious Weeds. WELLINGTON, July 7. The Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. O. J. Hawkeu), in replying to a suggestion that noxious weed boards on the lines of rabbit boards should be established, said this was unsound, because those with clear properties would object to paying rates for the man with weeds on his land. Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) : Give them * trial and see. The Minister continued that no other country in the world was continuing with legislation as New Zealand was. AH had given up the efforts to eradicate the noxious weeds, recognising that it was more a question for the individual farmer. New Zealand had made great mistakes in spending thousands of pounds on the Scotch thistle. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) : Another victory for Scotland! The Minister added that, after giving up the attempts to eradicate this, efforts in regard to the Californian thistle and then the foxglove had been abandoned. “If I had half a million pounds to spend every year," he said, “it could not produce the desired result. There is a wrong feeling among our farmers, and I am afraid there are large numbers of very dirty and careless farmers in the country. This feeling should not prevail. The Government intends to help the inspectors to force the farmers to clear their farms. Mr Lysnar: That is no good. The Minister: The boards would not be viewed with favour by the farmers themselves. Mr Lysnar: You have not given them a chance. The Minister: I would be glad if I could get rid of the responsibility of the weeds. In the case of ragwort, the Minister said efforts should be made to eradicate this in dairying land, but in some districts it was impossible to attempt a general eradication. “If I were to try and force the farmers in the King Country to do this,” he said, “25 per cent, of them would walk off their farms. It i 3 just the same with blackberry. The whole question is, Has the world ever been found to be one for the individual fanner ? ”

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

New Bi!i6. The Roman Catholic Archbishop Empowering Bill was read a first time on July 7. The Bill introduced by the Hon. J. MacGregor, seeking to abolish the unanimity of a jury in criminal cases and to substitute a five-sixths majority was read a second time. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. PENSIONS. Amongst the papers laid on the table of the House on July 6 was the report of the Pensions Department, whereupon an academic discussion arose on the subject of pensions, during which Mr H. E. HOLLAND (Leader of the Opposition) put in a plea for an improvement in the position of miners’ pensions. A miner suffering from miners’ phthisis who had a family to support on 35s per week was in an extremely precarious position. No support was given to him for his wife and children, yet he was in danger of losing his pension if he did any work to supplement his income. The stTongost case could be made out why these men.should be paid a pension sufficient to enable them to live up to a decent standard of comfort during the few years left to them before death claimed them. Very often the victims were young men with families dependent on them. In one case which came under the notice of the speaker the wife drew jess during the lifetime of her husband than she did after his death. On the question of total incapacity he maintained that applicants for pensions should be examined by X-rays so that there should be no error in determining the extent of their trouble. The Hon. F. J. ROLLESTON said that in cases where soldier settlers were not satisfied with the decision of the Pensions Board he hoped that every consideration would be extended to them by the Appeal Board. His experience was that the pensions legislation was being most sympathetically administered, not only by the Pensions Board but by the officials of the Department. The Hon. G. J. ANDERSON, in reply, mentioned that there were now 49,264 pensioners in the Dominion, to whom the total amount of £2,489,578 was paid last year. The increases of last year made the sum of £150,000. and there were further increases in anticipation, which were estimated to cost an additional £45,800. while the cost of administration was only 2.47 per cent, which was proof that the Department was run very cheaply. OIL IN TERRITORIAL WATERS. The Hon. G. J. ANDERSON (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of the CHI in Territorial Waters Bill. He explained that the Bill had been asked for by the Harbours Association, and was intended to deal with the question of the discharge of surplus oil from oil burning steamers as this discharge was not only a nuisance, but was destructive to various forms of marine life. Older countries were finding great difficulty in this connection, but so far no solution had been yet discovered in New Zealand. The nuisance created by surplus oil was particularly troublesome in Auckland wntew, and fishermen there had asked that oil burning vessels should be compelled to empty their tanks 150 miles from the shore, but this could not be done unless there were an international agreement to that effect. The difficulty could, however, be overcome to a great extent by installing oil separators in oil burning and oil carrying vessels. By this means a great deal of oil could be saved and the waste product could be made A marketable commodity. That provision was not embodied in the Bill, but it would probably be considered by the Harbours Association and plants might be installed at the four main ports. Under the Bill oil oould not bo discharged within New Zealand territorial waters. The penalty for a breach was £SOO, and when the offence was continued it would cost the offender a further fine of the same amount for each day the offence was committed. A good defence to the proceedings was proof that the discharge was due to a collision or any other happening affecting a ship. If damage to property resulted from the escape of oil and the owners of an offending vessel did not reside in New Zeeland

power was given a Magistrate to order the retention of the ship as security. It was further provided that the master of every ship arriving in New Zealand from overseas. which carried oil in bulk as cargo or fuel, must notify the harbourmaster at the first port of call of that circumstance not later than 12 hours before arrival Where the ship was not equipped with wireless a notice was to be delivered to the harbourmaster immediately on arrival. Furthermore. before a vessel left one port in New Zealand a similar notice must be despatched to the harbourmaster at the next, port of call. Neglect under his heading rendered the delinquent liable to a fine of £SO. Power was given to inspect premises and ships. Mr HOLLAND (Leader of the Opposition) said the Bill was evidently the result of modern marine development, and he saw no objection to the measure. Mr FRASER (Wellington Central) said he regretted that the Bill did not deal with a practice growing up amongst oil tankers to come into New Zealand ports loaded above the Plimsoll mark. He would like to see those responsible imprisoned because fines were no deterrent to those who thought less of a fine than they did of the extra cargo they could bring in by overloading their ship, thereby endangering the lives o* their crews. Sir JOHN LUKE doubted the right to imprison offenders against the law relating to the Plimsoll mark without an international agreement. What we required at present was a heavier fine. The Hon. G. J. ANDERSON: It is now £IOOO. The Bill was read a second time on the voices. POLICE OFFENCES BILL. The Hon. F. J. ROLLESTON (Attor-ney-general) moved- the second reading of the Police Offences Amendment Bill, which makes it an offence to obtain admission to any place without paying the fee lawfully charged for admission thereto. It is proposed to amend section 41 of the Act by including the words “ making liable to imprisonment with hard labour anyone who does an indecent act in any place, intending thereby to insult or offend any person.” Another proposed amendment is that the police may arrest and bring before a magistrate or two justices persons deemed to be without lawful means of support or insufficient lawful means of support. Proof of guilt makes the accused liable to three months’ imprisonment. If such persons have money or property, the onus of proof that it has been come by honestly lies with them. It is proposed to strike out of section 7 of the Act of 1924 the words “by night,” and substitute the words “ at any time,” so that persons found by day or by night on property without lawful excuse, but not under circumstances disclosing criminal intent, may be convicted and subjected to a fine or imprisonment. Mr H. E. HOLLAND (Leader of the Opposition) said he hoped the House would not assent to this Bill, clause 2 of which made it a criminal act if a small boy crawled under a circus tent or jumped over the fence of a sports ground. That was " petty ” legislation, and should not be passed. He took particular exception to clause 4, giving constables power to arrest without warrant any person suspected of being without lawful means of support. Further, such a man might have money or property on him. That fact must not be considered by a magistrate unless he could prove that he came by his money or property honestly. He ventured to say there was never such an astounding clause written into any law. It completely reversed the established order of British justice. Mr J. A. NASH defended the clause, saying that it wa» necessary to make an example of those persons who climbed fences and obtained admission to sports or show grounds without paying. Mr H. T ARMSTRONG and Mr H. ATMORE objected to clause 4 as being a perversion of British justice. Mr P. FRASER protested against clauses 2 and 4 which, instead of broadening our law “from precedent to precedent,” it brought it down to very narrow limits. The police had ample power at the present time to do all that was necessary to protect the public interests under the Act. In replying the MINISTER said he would refer the Bill to the Statutes Revision Committee which would take evidence on its various clauses. The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL. The Hon. F. J. ROLLESTON moved the second reading of the Evidence Amendment bill which, he explained, was a measure of three clauses ana proposed that the Evidence Act shall be amended to enable an accused person and the wife or the husband of an accused person to give evidence in proceedings before justices in indictable offences. The only other provision in the Bill is that the wife or the nusband of a person charged with bigamy may be called as a witness to prove the first marriage. The Minister said the Bill was more or less technical in character, and he asked that it be referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. This course was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time without debate. DESTITUTE PERSONS BILL. The Hon. F. J. ROLLESTON then moved the second reading of the Destitute Persons Amendment Bill, which is designed to deal more effectively with defaulting husbands. Maintenance officers have been appointed in the larger cities and though their proceedings have not been quite valid the result has been most satisfactory, and it is now deoided to give them legal status. Their duty is to get into touch with people against whom orders have been made and collect from them week by week the amounts due, and so prevent the piling up of huge sums of nrreara which the defendant can never hope to pay. It is proposed to appoint such officers in most towns, and where this is not justified the work can be done by a police constable. The coat of administration is not likely to be heavy. Another provision of the Bill proposes to increase from 21s to 42s the amount for which a maintenance order may be made against a near relative of the destitute person. Another amendment removes the limitation as to the amount for which a husband or a wife is liable. Section 22 of the principal Act, which states the effect of an order of guardianship, is repealed, and there is sn extension of the liability of parents in respect of the cost of main-

tenauce of children in public or charitable institutions through making the term child include any person under 21 years of age. A new provision empowers a magistrate to clear the court during the hearing of cases taken under the Act. The Bill was read a second time. VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL. The Hon. O. J. HAWKEN moved the second reading of the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, which provides that after January I next all persons practising as veterinary surgeons must be registered by a board consisting of a registrar to be appointed from the veterinary surgeons in the employ of the Agricultural Department, one person appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, and two veterinary surgeons appointed on the recommendation )f the New Zealand Veterinary Association. The Minister stated that the Bill was necessary on account of the large number of valuable stock now in the Dominion. The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION thought the Bill was unnecessarily harsh on practical men who had not been through the colleges, but who had been practising for many years. They had previously passed many Bills providing that those who were practising professions at the time should not be required to pass examinations, and he thought that the principle should apply to veterinary surgeons. Mr W. A. VEITCH denounced the Bill as harsh and revolutionary, stating that it took away the existing right from those at present engaged as veterinary surgeons. The MINISTER OF LANDS admitted that some hardship might follow the passing of the Bill, but the time had arrived when the settlers should know who were qualified men and who were not. The Hon. D. BUDDO thought that some concessions should be made to those men now practising as veterinary surgeons, because if this were not done there would be a great shortage of men capable of doctoring cattle, since about half class of work in the Dominion was done by unqualified men. Sir GEORGE HUNTER and Messrs M. J. SAVAGE and W. H. FIELD gave the measure qualified support. The MINISTER, in reply, said the Bill did not propose to stop those now practising from continuing to do so. All it would do would prevent them describing themselves as veterinary sprgeons. The Bill was read a second time, and referred to the Stock Committee. EDUCATION LEASES. Replying to Mr A. M. Samuel, the Hon. Mr M‘LEOD said he was at present preparing legislation i" conjunction with the Minister of Education to put all education leases on a better basis so that the holders of their leases might take greater advantage of loans from the Advances Department. FIRST LEADINGS. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time:—Christchurch Tramway District Amendment Bill (Mr Armstrong); Nurses and Midwives Registration Amendment Bill (the Hon. J. A. Young); Wellington City Milk Supply Amendment Bill (Mr Fraser); Justices of the Peace Amendment (Hon. F. J. Rolleston). REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. In reply to questions the Ministers gave the following amongst other answers: That there are no negotiations in pro gress between the Imperial and New Zealand Governments in relation to New Zealand boing incorporated within the schemes of Imperial aviation. The question would come up for discussion at the next Imperial Conference. . That it is the intention of the Prime Minister to take a convenient opportunity later in the session o! making a statement to the House in connection with the Imperial Conference. That the Advances Department gives very careful consideration to all applications for loans from returned soldiers, and where the circumstances are shown to bo of an urgent or necessitous nature the department deals with the applications immediately they are received in the office. That in the event of the Summertime Bill becoming law it would have the effect of putting the general routine of. business an hour ahead ot the present timo, and the railway time-table would automatically advance an hour to synchronise with the altered conditions. That the Government awaits communication from the Commonwealth Government in respect of reciprocity in the matter of ol< That it* is not proposed this session to vary the Pensions Act in the direction of increasing the exemption in regard to the amount of savings that may be held by any pensioner. . , That it is not proposed to increase tne present amount of the old-age pension or pension payable to the blind. The question of an invalidity pension is receiving consideration in connection with the general contributory pension scheme. That it is not npoposed to increase the amount of the widows’ pension at present. That it is not proposed to grant pensions to deserted wives and ’heir children. That it is propoced to appoint a commission to inq ire into the position of unregistered dentists at an early date, and the question of legislation will depend on their report. That the question of the electoral representation of the South Island will receive the consideration of the Government. . That there is no prospect of capitation grants to school committees being increased this year. That from inquiries made it does not appear there is at present any urgent necessity to take special steps to restrict importations of oats. That the New Zealand Government recently secured from Canada the benefit of her reciprocal treaty with Australia and ns a result our chief primary products are admitted into Canada either free of duty or at comparatively low rates of duty. That the recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry regarding mental defectives and sexual offenders, including the setting up of a eugenic board, are now under the consideration of the Government, but, as the proposals are such that they call for most careful consideration before deciding to give them legislative shape, it is not contemplated that legislation will be introduced this ssesion. Liava of Absence. Leave of absence for the remainder of the session was, on the motion of Mr G. W. FORBES, granted to Mr T. M. Wilford, member lor HutL

Motor Bus Regulations. The PRIME MINISTER moved on July 9 that the following Select Committee be set up to report on the regulations as to the control of motor omnibuses gazetted in terms of the Board of Trade Act, 1919, and its amendments, together with any petitions presented to this House relating to same: Messrs J. S. Dickson, P. Fraser, G. W. Forbes, H. Holland, E. J. Howard, E. P. Lee, C. E. MacMillan, M. J. Savage, T. K. Sidey, H. L. Tapley, the Hon. K. S. Williams, and the mover. Mr HARRIS took exception to the personnel of the committee, and suggested that the names of Messrs Potter and Forsyth be added to it. The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION pointed out this would give the Government Party a larger proportion of members than they now had. If any party were entitled to further representation it was the National Party, which had only two representatives on the committee. Mr FORSYTH said he wanted to see a committee set up free from party considerations. They should be above party and should be selected upon a more equitable basis. Upon this the PRIME MINISTER administered a severe reprimand to the member for Wellington East, stating that he was the selector of the committees, and that this was done on the lines on which it had always been done. lie thought Mr Forsyth was something of an innocent abroad when he thought party did not come into this matter. The Prime Minister said he had no objection to increasing the strength of the committee, and on his motion the name of Mr Potter, the member for Roskill, was added to the committee. Jottings. WELLINGTON, July 6. Mr George Forbes has presented a petition on behalf of Gustav A. Hirschberg, of Wellington, who complains that clause 59 of “ TTie Native Land Laws Amendment Act, 1895,” was passed with the express purpose of barring his claim to the lease of Longbush, Ngawakaakupe, No. 3 Block, 8000 acres. He states that “he has transferred (in his mind) his interests, and is transferring, and will transfer, his interests in the lease of this land to the public.” He then enumerates his proposed bequests (presumably if he gets possession of the block) to various churches, the Wellington hospital, and other institutions, in the total amount of £IBO,OOO. Among the bwjuests he has decided (in his mind) to give “ £30,000 for scholarships.’ Officers of the New Zealand Public Service employed in the Cook Islands are entitled for superannuation purposes to count each complete year of service as a year and a-half. This right is limited, however, to service subsequent to the commencement of that Act on April 1, 1010. A Bill has been introduced to confer the game right with respect to service prior to the above date. Similar, provision is proposed to be made (in the Samoa Amendment Bill) with respect to service in a civil capacity in Samoa during the period of military occupation. The tropical conditions prevailing in the Islands in question make some such rule a necessary concession to the European public servants employed there. Dairy Control. At a caucus of the Government Partv the question of amendments to the Dairy Control Export Act was discussed at some length. Needless to say the opinion was not unanimous, but it is understood that there is a considerable majority in the House in favour of control. The question of voting on a tonnage basis meets with more opposition and it would not be surprising to hear of a proposal to subst it ute the one man-one-vote for the tonnage system. Compulsory control comes into force on September 1. The Budget. The present Government’s first Budget has been received with a chorus of general approval. It is terse and lucid, a plain statement of facts, figures and policy, with an absence of the redundant and the grandiose with which some former Ministers cf Finance were wont to clothe their efforts. For this the new Minister of Finanoe is to be complimented, and indeed has been complimented very heartily. The Hon. Mr Stewart also succeeded in reading the Budget so clearly that its points could be easily followed by'even the average listener. The general verdict is that it is the most business-like Budget for many years. Weather Bureau. It is now a considerable time sinoe the Government or the Minister of Marine got a special report on the weather bureau, and it is understood that certain recommendations were made but nothing in the way of improvement has eventuated. From a statement which Mr Coates made in the debate on Sir Frank Heath’s report in the House of Representatives, we may expect that steps are now to be taken to make the department much more useful than it is at present or has been in the past. The improvement may involve increased expenditure in getting information from a wider area and perhaps some improvement in the personnel. Poverty Bay Meat Works. WELLINGTON, July 8. Shortly after the House met to-day Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) *>ughfc the indulgence of members to make a statement in renly to the speech mado by Mr D. Jones (Ellesmere) on the Gisborne Meat Commission’s findings. The Prime Minister said he was not sure whether Mr Lysnar wished to make a personal explanation or a statement. Mr Lysnar: I want to make both. Mr Coates said he was loth to agree, even at the wish of members, to the time of tho House being occupied by the explanation, for there were several papers which he wished to see dealt with. He was quite prepared, however, to suggest, that at some future date some time could be allocated for this subject Mr D. Jones said he had hail no privilege whatever of making a personal explanation. He held a similar concession should be given to him as to that granted Mr Lysnar. He would not have raised the question but for Mr Lysnar’s having done lOh

Mr Lysnar then proceeded to make a long statement in reference to the alleged misrepresentation by Mr Jones, the member for Elleemero He was several times pulled up by Mr Speaker, who, however, allowed him an unusual amount of latitude, at being very difficult to follow his explanations from tho evidence of himself and other witnesses given before the Royal Commission.. Mr Ly nar began with a reference to an alleged statement by Mr Jones that he (Mr Lysnar) had endeavoured to get a license for Armours (Ltd.). Mr Jones interjected: I never stated that. Mr Lysnar said he was glad to have that assurance. He understood that Mr Jones had stated that he was prepared to sell to Vesteys and the trusts. Mr Lysnar dealt with this matter by quotations from the evidence, which ho claimed disproved tho charge. He next proceeded to deal with the question of the profits made by the Admiral Codrington question, on which, he said, Mr Jones had misrepresented him by stating that, instead of a profit, there was a loss on the running of the ship. Mr Lysnar said it was admitted in the evidence that there was a profit on the running of the ship. There was, he said, no justification for the statement that there was a loss of £24,000. In this matter Mr Bowen’s evidence, he stated, was shown to be unreliable, and, in any case, it was completely cleared up by his (Mr Lysnar’s) cross-examination. Mr Bowen had not seen the balance sheet, and no one else had seen it. Mr Lysnar next referred to the statement that he had persuaded (he bank that the shares in the ship had all been taken up. In this respect Mr Jones had accepted a witness’s evidence that was of no value. That evidence had been disproved, but the hon. member had used such evidence as facts. In regard to the increase in the expenditure for insulating the vessel, he explained that tho £20,000 had reference to part of the ship only. Afterwards, on getting a tender for the whole work from London, it was found that it would be cheaper to get it done in Auckland at a cost of £9o,ooo— not £84.000. as had been stated. There was no request from the bank to advance any amount in connection with the insulation. Mr Lysnar, in concluding one of the longest personal explanations ever heard in the House, intimated that he would return to the subject on the Budget debate, when he would have more latitude. Mr Jones, in reply, said that the statements alleged by Mr Lysnar to have been made by him were not so made. He (Mr Jones) had simply quoted the findings of the commission, and he had piloted from nothing e'se. Mr Jones proceeded to quote from the findings of the commission the parts he had used in his speech. Mr Lysnar objected that there was no misrepresentation in that. Mr Speaker • i understand the hon. member alleges that you said he made these misstatements. Now he is showing that he only quoted from the commission’s report. Mr Lysnar: When he knew it was not the truth. Mr Speaker interposed, and Mr Lysnar substituted the words, “when he knew it wa3 not correct.” Mr Jones: The hon. member adrpits now that I was quoting from the commission’s findings but that the commission’s statement is’ not truthful. I never quoted any evidence. I kept strictly to the findings of the commission, and the commission says that the company was in a hopelessly insolvent position. Mr Jones referred to the evidence of Mr Mountford, one of Mr Lysnar’s own witnesses, who admitted that the company was not solvent if they took certain figures. Mr Lysnar had stated that Mr Bowen’s evidence had been discredited, but that witness was given so much credence that a page and a-half of his evidence had been quoted in the commission’s findings. In regard to the ship the commission showed that, in addition to the loss of capital, there was a loss on her working expenses. There wore, in fact, enormous losses in connection with the ship. Then, added Mr Jones, there was a certain journal which showed the workings of that vessel. This journal had been put into the hon. member for Gisborne’s hands, and it had never been seen since, and they were handicapped in regard to the position of the Admiral Codrington because of the loss cf that important journal. Mr Lysnar: There was a ledger 1 Mr Jones: The ledger was produced, and the accountant said that on the ledger statement there was a loss. In concluding a statement which, compared with Mr Lysnar’s, was short and terse, Mr Jones said that in dealing with the matter he had been careful not to express his own opinions. “I was,” he said, “careful 1j take only the findings of that commission, and what I said stands if the findings of the commission stand.”