POLITICAL NOTES.

Southland Times, Issue 19138, 31 August 1903, Page 2

POLITICAL NOTES.

A Sensational Evening. The week that has just passed has witnessed one of the most peculiar positions that have risen in Parliament for many years past. Tho amendment moved by Mr T. M. Wilford on the Imprest Supply Bill wa/s net only of an unusual nature, but to all appearances it was moved at the instigation of the Premier in order that Mr T. E. Taylor's criticism of Mr Seddon's action in placing so many of his relations in remunerative public positions should not be made when the galleries were fully tenanted. Tho Premier was evidently advised of Mr Taylor's intentions, and rather than face the ordeal he wasted hours of valuable time. In his recent speech at Carterton, Mr Seddon laid particular stress upon the iniquity of the Opposition in the matter of obstructing the business of the House and wasting precious time, for which the country paid at the rate of £40 per hour. It was not very consistent, thoroforo, of the Premier to stonewall for a whole evening merely to sa.vo himself from what he evidently reI garded as a position not at all remarkable for comfort. But the most notable feature of the evening was the speech made by Mr T. E. Taylor. It was a speech that will not bo forgotten. Mr Seddon's reply was one of the lamest which he has made to a telling criticism. We do not suggest that there was anything improper about the appointment of Mr Seddon's relatives to the positions they now hold, or that they are unfitted for the duties they have to perform. These matters are beyond our knowledge. The crux of the position is that neither the Premier of tho colony nor any of his colleagues .should bo in a position in which it may be imputed to them that they have used their influence unduly to the advantage of themselves or the members of their families. In this instance, the appointments to which Mr Taylor referred may be good appointments. Thero may l>e no bettor members of the public service that Mr Seddon's relatives, but under any circumstances it is not right that a Minister should bo in tho position in which Mr Seddon was placed on Friday night. Had the Civil Service been under independent control, Mr Seddon's relatives might still have found employment in it. but the Premier would not have been open to the suggestion that their appointment was due to his personal influence. That, we take it, is the true point of MiTaylor's philippic, and so far as wo are concerned it contains no imputation against the Premier's character. Unless we greatly err, we have not heard the last of this matter. The consequences of this frank approach lo the question cannot now be fully measured. There is a grooving foiling that tho public service should bo purified, and in some way detached from Government influence. Civil Service reform will be made one of the main planks in the campaign against the present Government. Public interest will be aroused, and we do not know a bettor case for Hio most severe public scrutiny. Reform is urgently required, and the .sooner it is demanded and insisted upon the better it will be lor the whole country. The Rabbit Nuisance The Bill introduced by Sir W. Russell to amend tho "Rabbit Nuisance Act Amendment Act, 1901," did not receive very kindly treatment at the hands of members. On the face of it, the bill appears to be a simple measure enough— merely placing in the hands of the stock-owners of any district the power to take ruoro drastic means to cope with the rubbit post. But on a closer inspection some of the main features of the till are seen to be objectionable. In th« first place it is proposed to reinvest the inspectors appointed by the Agricultural Department with the powers which they held under the Act of 1882, iincl which the House sawlit to take away from them in tho amending law of .1.901. In the former Act, owners of land were required to satisfy the inspectors that they had taken sufficient steps to clear their land of rabbits. Any evidence that owners could produce in Court was of no avail, for "if in the opinion of the inspector" the owner had been negligent, «. conviction was bound to follow! The magistrate had no discretionary power, and the "opinion" of the inspector was allpowerful. Experience showed that it was not desirable to clothe inapectors with a power so complete. Such pdwer is necessarily liuble to abuse, and in cases positive hardship' may result, and, it is .believed, did result, from the arbitrary manner in wliich inspectors exercised their authority. In 1901, therefore, the law was amended, and it rested with the Magistrate to decide, after hearing evidence, whether a conviction should bo recorded or not. In this bill of Sir W\ Russell, it is proposed to revert to the old position, with this difference : that the Act ;*hull only come into force in a district in which a majority of stock-owners so decide. And here again there is a feature which is open to criticism Only stock-owners who own moro than 500 sheep or cuttle shall have any voice in the matter, and tihe number of votes which a person slull have is to ibe in proportion to the number of his stock. This savours of class legislation, and gives a dominating power to large stock-owners, while those who do nc<t possess tho requisite 500 head of stock would not be entitled to vote at all. These are the two main objections to tho bill, and so long aS they arc utained we do not think that the House will refrain from its obstruction of the measure. It is admitted that in certain parts of the colony iroro effective measures for the suppression of rabbits are necessary. The position in the North differs from that in the South, and under the pieseni law the evil is not diminishod in some parts of the colony. In £<ir W. Russell's own district the rabbit is a positive menace to pastoralists, and it was for their benefit chiefly that this bill was introduced. They lu«vo Spent thousands of pounds w ; t.lu>ut success in coping with tho pest, and drastic legislation would bo welcomed by them. tinder these cii rumstances it might be advisable for Sir \V. Russell to give the bill a local application only, and to modify its objectionable features. This could be done without destroying us eficctiveness, and we think the House would then take no exception to its passing on to tho Statute UooK, Freedom of Speech To our mind, one oi tjift nicst important features of tnc past v.oek in Parliament was the report brought down by the Committee on standing Orders. A number of alterati ms in the rules which govern the j roceodiiißH <M Uio Hpuso arc proposed, and ninoiig them are npnw to which serious exception must bo taJ<en.. The chief of theso amounts practically io a modified fonu-juf the closure, and is in these word's : "After a question has been proposed, either in the House or in Committee, a member may move without debate thftt the vote be now taken, ajnd if or moro members (including the mover) rise in support of such motion, and Mr Speaker or the Chairman of. iho whole House considers that tUo U'o* r

tioa is reasonable, it shall thereupon be put from tiie Chair, and if it. is affirmed by two-thirda of the members present, then the vote on the original question shall be forthwith ! taken." Plainly stated, the into*'pretation of this clause is that a debate on any motion can be stopp* ed by two-thirds of the members present. Another proposed standing order provides that a member in charge of a bill may at any time qU ter the bill has gone through committee, move that the bill be reported, and such bill shall be reported if the motion is carried by a majority of three-fifths of those voting. A third of the recommendations limits the time allowed for each of the foui speeches in Committee of the Houso to five minutes, except in Committeo of Supply, when a member speaking to the first vote or an amendment thereto of the general public works or supplementary estimates is to bo allowed four speeches of ten minutes' duration. To the ordinary reader, tho second addition to the Standing Orders which we have quoted may not be significant, but it is pregnant with possibilities. Roughly interpreted, it means that no new clauses can bo added to a bill if a majority of three-fifths of those voting can bo secured to vc<te that the bill bo reported from Committee. If the^c clauses are approved by the House, it is not difficult to foresee the uso which may. be made of them by a powerful Premier like Mr Seddon. With the assistance of his inveterate party, ho would be able to quash a hostile stonewall, curtail a debate which was not to his liking, or carry a bill through Committee without having to answer by reason a host of Amendments which he was anxious to evade. It is quite conceivable that, as our representative in the Press Gallery suggests, this lastmentioned power would be particularly useful to the Premier at the present juncture in view of approaching licensing legislation. The wholo tendency of the.se proposed now clauses is to further curtail the rights of the minority and add to the power of i the majority— a power that is often unjustly exercised. Tho rights of the minority should be sacred, and any effort to trench upon them should be fought against to the limit of endurance. There is a large element of danger in these proposals of the Standing Orders Committee, and we hope that when the report comes be- i fore the House for consideration, members will not easily be persuaded to assist the Premier in still further strengthening his despotism.