THE HOUSE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 959, 28 October 1910, Page 6

THE HOUSE.

ANIMALS' PROTECTION BILL. Upon the resumption of the sittings of the House of Eopresentatives yesterday, the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Animals' Protection Amendment Bill were agreed to. TARANAKI SCHOLARSHIPS BILL. In moving the second reading of the Taranaki Scholarships Amendment Bill The Hon. D. BUDDO said that tile'object, of the Bill was to, remove certain disabilities in regard to compensation for improvements, under which the tenants laboured. Its provisions would not affect the. revenues from the lands, and their, adoption on the part of tenants would be optional. . ' . ..-.,:'..... Mr. PEARCE (Patea) indicated, amendments which he would propose during the Committee stage. " . The Bill was then read a second time. KAIAPOI RESERVES BILL. In moving that the Kaiapoi Reserves Bill be committed, • The Hon. J, CAEEOLL.said that its .object.was to have a Royal Commission set up to report upon the circumstances connected with the dispositions by will of any of the lands in question and the expediency of validating all or any of such dispositions, and iri the meantime to stay all actions now commenced or , threat- , ened..-

Mr. HEERIES (Tauranga) pointed out that one. result: of the,passing.-of the measure would bo that a recent decision of the Supreme Court, would be huns up fox twelve months. ■

. Mr. PARATA (Southern Maori District) expressed the .opinion, that lawyers should not ,be allowed to appear before' the commission unless their attendance was previously approved. - :■.■■■■ Mr. MASSIiIT said he hoped that there would not be large payments to, tho commissioners, as was the case in' regard to the Native Land Commission ■ . The Hon. J. CARROLL said one was reluctant to interfere with rulings of the highest Court in the land, but this was an exceptional case wliere Parliament was quite, justified in intervening and uialrin" some provision whereby the -equities re--suiting from a peculiar position of affairs might be met aud adjusted. 'It was not,the intention to appoint Judges of the Supreme Court or members of Parliament to the commission. The law had already been decided by the Court'of Appeal and the matter could, he thought be very well-left to those whose experience in official life gave them a' grasp 'of the technical, matters to be dealt with. . ■ :. . Urgency of the Measure. The scope of the commission had still to be thought out. In doing this tho suggestion -made as to whether the legal profession should be admitted would be considered. Generally he thought it best to leave these matters to the discretion of the commission. This was merely an inquiry into circumstances connected with the dispositions under certain wills. . He hbped that legislation would be framed on the report to. give effect to what was desired. --, The Bill was put through its Committee stage aud reported without amendment. Tho MINISTER asked that the Bili be put through its final stages as it was urgent that.it should be put on the Statute Book as soon as possible. . Mr. T. E. TAYLOR (Christchurch North) opposed the suggestion saying that he wanted to comrauuicate with solicitors in Christchurch to see if the Bill interfered in any way with successful actions already taken in the Supreme Court. The suggestion made by Mr. Carroll could not, therefore, be adopted and the Bill was set down for its third reading to-day. ■ • . RIVER BOARDS BILL, In moving that the amendments made by the Legislative Council in tho River Boards Amondmont Bill be agreed to, The Bon. D. BUDDO said the amendments were all consequential with the exception that Clause 1, which made the time for receiving claims for compensation two year 6, had been struck out. He moved that the amendments be agreed to. Mr. BUCHANAN (Wairarnpa) said theclause that had been struck out had been debated at considerable length in the House before it was agreed to and he hoped that the House would not consent to its being sltuck out. He could not see the reasonableness of trying to.defeat

the decision of the House. To agree to the amendments would bo a great injustice to settlers in his district. Ho uiovod as an amendment that Clause 4 be cxcepted from the motion moved by the Minister iir charge of the Dill. Mr. MASSEY said a foil House had agreed to the clause as it left the House after the matter had been fully threshed out.

The amendment moved by Mr. Buchanan was rejected by 33 votes to 24. It was then decided, by 35 votes to 24, that the whole of the amendments should be agreed ,to.

i OPIUM 81L4.. In moving .the second reading of the Opium Amendment Bill, The Hon. T. MACKENZIE said that the Anti-Opium League, tho chemists, and others had requested the amendments. Tho second reading was agreed to without discussion. INSPECTION OF MACHINERY BILL, The Inspection of ' Machinery Amendment Bill was then dealt with. The Bill w.as put through Committee, and reported with a consequential amendment. CONTROL OF HARBOURS. . STATE NOMINEE SYSTEM. ■ BASIS 03? EEPEESENTATION. In Committee on, the Harboure Amendment Bill (No. 2), . • Mr. Hemes was informed. by the Minister (the Hon. J. A. Millar), in reply to a question, that tho Bill could be brought into operation by January 1, 1911.

Mr. T. E. , TAYLOR (Christchurch North), referring to the following clause: "Elective members of a board includes all the members of a board other than those who toe appointed' by the Governor," moved' that all -the words after "other" he etruck out. He wished to know whether tho House approved of members of harbour boards being elected on the parliamentary- franchise. He was opposed to the .Government having any representation on- a harbour board for whose loans the Government was not responsible. Later; Mr. Taylor said he would not move for the parliamentary franchise now, as ■'■Mγ. Davey intended doing so. Hβ would,' however, move to strike out the words to test the , feeling of. the House as to the Government should exercise the power, of nominating (members. . ■ ' The Hon. .T. A. MILLAR eaid he would move to reportprogress if the amendment was carried. He wanted to make it perfectly clear that he would not go on. with the Bill if the amendment was carried, and he wished members'to know this. Mr. WITTY (Eiccarton) thought the Bill if passed as it stood would be a great advance on what we. had in'the existing law, '■ ■..■', Voting. Against His Convictions. Mr. EUSSELL (Avon) recorded.his protest, against Government nomination, uut he would vote for the clause although it meant voting against his convictions, a thing ho had never done'before/ but it was this or lose the Bill, and he. did not want to lose the Bill, ■ which contained much of benefit to Christchurch.

Mr. HEEBIES (Tauranga) said the party Whip had apparentlyJieen at work einco the adjournment; for supper. He did not know what the last speaker's convictions were, but they seemed to be pretty elastic. It was not very hard for him to swallow his convictions. ' They .were not.v«ry large. He (Mr. Herries) had very 'strong convictions, aad he thought there should be no Government nominations. . ' .

The MINISTEE (in reply to Mr. Herries) said he'had no idea of intimidating the Commitee; when he said he would re-', port progress if the amendment was carrietl. A. contract had been entered into; and he was not going to break it The original loams had been 'pui on the market on the understanding that there should be; Government representation, on the boards.- If one of the Government ..nominees was struck out as regards a city iie would be favourable to giving an extra member. His own vote would go for the Bill, but if it were the wish of the Committee he would accept ■amendment as to the Government repre•sentation on boaids. ; .'•■_;.'.- . The amendment was then withdrawn. Parliamentary Franchise Rejected. ' Mr. DAVEY (Christchnrch - Eist), at Clause i, moved as an amendment that members other than those.specially elected should be.elected on the Parliamentary franchise. '-.•-.: ■-: Mr, MASSEY said that his experience was, that peoplo in general took no interest in harbour boards. His objection to Parliamentary franchise in the matter of harbour board elections was' that it would play into.the'hands ofdrganised cliques. He was, he might say,:-not referring to ordinary political organisations. - - ; •..'■.■■■•■■:..■■ .i, ■ The Hon. J.A. MILLAR said that he could not accept the .amendment. . K would mean that a special roll would have to be printed. He would admitthat there was some injustice, If, however, the House 'liked to,approve -the additional expense he would not object. .' The amendment was rejected by 47 votes to 21. ... Franchise in Combined districts. ' Mr. CEAIGIE (Tiniaru) moved-a new clause to Clause; 7 to the effect that in the case of a combined district an elector in the portion which is a county should enjoy the same franchise as an elector in the borough part of the district. ■ ' . . ■'■'. ... The Hon. J. A. MILLAR said that on the score of expense of printing a special roll he could not accept the amendment. Mr. OICJ3Y (Taranaki) said, that he would support the amendment if the' basis of the election was'-m'ade the county franchise. ■ . ■ . The sub-clause was rejected by 41 votes to 25... : . .- . When Clause 13 was reached Mr. POOLE (Auckland West) moved an amendment to the effect that apart from the proposed single Government nominee and the representative of the ship-owners'the other members of a harbour board shall be elected by the'electors . Mr. LUKE (Wellington Suburbs) said that representatives of payers of dues coiild bring a lot of valuable experience to bear.in regard to' the work of boards. Mr. M'LAEEN (Wellington East) held that the system of class representation was altogether wrong. If ship-owners or payers of dues were allowed special representation there was an equal reason for the same being given to seamen, stevedores, etc. Special Representation. Mr. POOLE replied that he too was in favoμr of broad representation on boards. If anyone should get special representa-i tion on. boards it was the ship-owners. ■ The MINISTER said he believed that ship-owners : and payers of dues should have representation on boards.

Mr. M'LAREN argued that persons who exercised their vote as a payer of dues or as a ship-owner should not be allowed to ■ vote as ordinary citizens. The MINISTER said that he would have a' clause drafted on the subject. Upon a division the amendment was rejected, by 36 votes to 25. The Hon. J. A. MILLAR then moved that persons who voted as payers of dues or ship-owners should not be allowed "to exercise their votes as ratepayers at a board election. "'■■.■ •',

Mr. T. E. TAYLOR said that the new clause was not wor.th: having. ■ Mr. RUSSELL (Avon) declared that the amendment was an absurd one. as the number of tho payers of dues was so small. ■ . , The proposal was adopted on the voices. An area which a local authority may, without recourse to a special Act, reclaim where the reclamation will not affect navigation, was increased from two acres to five acres. ~...',' \n amendment by the Minister to give boards power to regulate time-tables and fares on ferry services was lost on tho voices. ■■ ■ ■ •■ • A-new clause was moved by Mr. Laurenson to provide that in the ease of boards on which members are elected by uavers of dues, one member shall also be elected by the Waterside Workers' Union. The clanse was rejected by 45 to 13. ine TAYLOR (Christchm . ch Norths moved a new clause to the effect that a board must, on a requisition ol 10 per cent of the electors, hold.a poll on the question whether any harbour work shall be proceeded with. The clause was rejected by 38 votes Mr.' NEWMAN (Manawatti) moved a new clause, to tho effect that the State should be rewired to pay boards full

compensation for all land acquired for public purposes. The clause was rejected on the voices. A New Clause. A Ministerial Defeat. Mr. MASSEY moved an amendment to the effect that the number of membersto be nominated by the Government on the Auckland Harbour Board bo reduced from two to one.The MINISTER said that if the amcnd- : ment were carried and the extra member were to be retained he would be favourable" to that' member baing elected by the shipowners.. . The amendment was carried by 40 votes to-18.

The MINISTER said that he would be satisfied if a division were taken on the question as to whether in each case where tho Government representation on a board was reduced by one, the total number of members on the board should also be reduced by one. If tho House did not approve of the reduction in tho total number of the members of tho board, he would report progress, with a view of the Auckland members meeting to settle who should elect the extra member.

A majority of the House were averse to the total number of members on a board being rednced, the voting being for the reduction 27 votes, against 31 votes. The Minister then moved to report progress, and the House rose at 2.45 a.in.