PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 144430, 18 July 1914, Page 4

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIC, NEW MEMBERS SWORN IN. SEE PEESS ASSOCIATION. WELLINGTON, July 17. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 P The Hons. Q. Samuel, J. MacGregor, R K. Simpson, W. Morgan, R. Moore, J. M‘Gibbon and J. Fisher wore sworn The usual sessional committees wore BOt U P" . ~ TT XT r> On the motion of the Horn H. V. Bell, it was decided that the I 1 n*o Brigades Amendment Bill bo taken at next sitting. Tho Council rose at 2.40 p.nu HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.30 p.m. Mr J M. Thomson moved tho second reading of the Presbyterian Church Property Act, 1885, Amendment Bill, a measure for the more effective vesting in trustees of property held for iho use and purposes of any congregation. Mi* Thomson explained that tho powei asked for was necessary in view of the extension of tho social side ot the Church’s work. Tho second reading passed without debate. , ■ ... . , . Mr. Graigio asked tlio Minister oi Education, without notice, whether ho would permit evidence to oc given to show why tho South Canterbury Education Board should not be abolished under the new Education Bill. In reply, the Minister said that personally he did not caro what boundaries were agreed upon, so long as tho districts were reduced in number. That could be done quite well by the Education Committee without taking special evidence. Mr. Herdman introduced tho Motor Kco-nlation Bill, under which all motorcars will be licensed and registered, and drivers are also to be licensed, the fees to be apportioned between the Consolidated Fund and tho local bodies interested. , ' Mr. Wilford urged that the tax should take the form of a tax upon tyres collected through tho Customs House. . Mr. Massey did not agree .with that view, and said tho tax should ho based on the values and horse-power of the ear. Sir Joseph Ward considered they wanted more information as to how many cars were running in tho Dominion in order to arrive at an idea of how. much taxation was to bo raised. Mr. Hindmarsh urged that in case on" accident the car, and not the owner, should bo held liable for damages. Mr. Russell protested against tho Bill as a form of class tax. The Bill .was read a first time. Mr. Allen moved the second reading of the Land Tax and Income Tax Bill.. Ho stated that it made no alteration in the amount of the tax levied.

Sir Joseph Ward asked if Mr. Allen would supply the House with information ai to the effect of tho stopping system introduced hy tho Treasurer in connection with the ordinary land tax. By how much had tho system increased tho taxation, and the number of taxpayers ? Mr. Massey, in reply, declared that there had not been any increase in tho rate of tho land-tax levied since his Government had come into offico. Tho only people whose land tax had increased were those whose valuations had gone up beyond the increase made in 1 the graduated tax. There had been nolegislation introduced by tho Government increasing taxation, in spite of what the Leader- of the Opposition had stated from tho public platform. Sir Joseph Ward denied that ho had' ever said the Government had by legislation increased the indirect taxation, but that did not alter the fact that the taxation had increased by 10s Id per head under a Government that had promised to reduce taxation. Mr. Bussell declared that since Mr. Massey had declared as part of tho “Beform” platform that taxation must be reduced the taxes taken from the people had increased by £1,097,000. Jlr. Allen, in reply, said that one of tho reasons why a Customs Bill had not been brought down last year was the waste of time resulting from the stonewall. There was no encouragement for tho Government to bring down reduction of taxation. There was noalteration in tho land tax last year.

The second reading of tho Bill was agreed to. Mr. Herdman moved tho second reading of the Defamation Bill. Ho was satisfied that members would find tho Bill a wise one. It was very, difficult for journalists to find out their legal position with regard to libel. Tho Bill attempted to draw a lipo between free speech and tho right of a citizen to have his character protected. The Minister was outlining the various clauses of the Bill when tho 5.30-p.m. adjourn--ment was taken. EVENING SESSION. The -House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Hardman proceeded with his explanation .of tho Defamation Bill. Members of Parliament were protected, he said, from defamation by utterances in the House, and matter published in tho course of judicial proceedings was also privileged. It was provided that fair and accurate reports of Parliament, public meetings, court proceedings, etc., were also privileged. It .was a good defence that a matter of defamation was true. In tho case of spoken words it was a good defence to prove that tho words were used on an occasion and in circumstances when the person detained was not likely to suffer injury thereby. No person would bo-liable to criminal proceedings in case of oral defamation. The proprietor, publisher or editor of a periodical was not criminally responsible for defamatory matter published without his knowledge and without negligence on his part. An employer was not responsible for tho sale of a book or publication containing defamatory matter by his servant, unless it was proved that defamatory matter habitually appeared in such publication. Sir Joseph Ward said the Bill was an important one. affecting tho public life, the private life, and the homes of tho people. He opposed clause 28, which protected a proprietor from criminal prosecution for defamation whore the matter complained of was inserted without his knowledge. This Bill threw tho onus of proof upon tho injured parties. 'Phat was not fair. Tho passage of the Bill would play info the hands of wealthy men, who could afford to take risks. ’He did not think that the proprietors had applied for a change, nor was it necessary. Mr. Hanan said that a special power was being/givon to the newspaper pro-

prictors which was not extended to other individuals. The press should not bo encouraged to hold up public men to scorn and ridicule.

Mr. M'Callura said that at present .there was not a single instance of hardship suffered by the press of New Zealand, and instead of giving extended privileges to tho press these should be curtailed.

Mr. Russell gave instances of attacks which could lie made upon public men. It was not fair that a report should be published of infamous smteuieuis by a man of straw at a public meeting. The Minister had not suown that a change in the law was necessary. Under tire law at present the first riling a man had to do who slandered another man was to prove that his action was in the public interest. Unless protected, men would light- shy of public life. Mr. Hoidmau, in reply, claimed that tho Bill advanced public interests and was a distinct advancement on the present law. It was an advantage that people should be able to road reports of public meetings and that, tho press should be nolo to publish anything that was in rho public interest. The press was bound by that reservation. .Reports of meetings of local authorities could be published. Then why not reports of public meetings, so long as they were fair and accurate and in tho public interest ? Misconceptions existed regarding clausa 2?. A newspaper proprietor was not criminally liable for matter published in his paper without his knowledge, but he was not relieved from civil liability. On the motion for the'second reading a division was called for, aud tho mo” tion was carried by 33 to 21. The House rose at 11.30 p.ro. BQ.XINC. GUNBOAT SMITH’S ERROR. r.r Keren;:c TEi.ncr.apn.—cowmeni. LONDON, July 17. Newspapers demure Smith’s blow, though foul, was a Hick, and quite unintentional. The crowd, boohing and hooting, rushed tho ring. Fifty thousand waiting outside also made a hostile demonstration.

BELL CHALLENGES SMITH

LONDON, July 17. Bell has challenged Gunboat Smith for £IOOO a-sidc.