THE HOUSE

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1810, 25 July 1913, Page 6

THE HOUSE

The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Mr. T. M. WILFORD (Hutt) gave notice of liis intentiou to ask the Minister for Public Works whether Mr. Furkcrt lias been appointed an inspecting engineer in the Public Works Department, and, if so, at what salary. The Hon. W. Eraser: He was appointed long ago. Seven days' leave of absence were granted to Dr. Te Rangiliiroa, who is at present acting as a medical officer in the North Auckland areas visited by the smallpox epidemic. LOCAL BILL. The following local Bills were read a first time:—Fox ton Harbour Board Loan Bill (Mr. Robertson), Borough of Morninylon Tramways Amendment Bill (Mr. Statham). Mr. Wilkinson gave notice of his intention to introduce the Land Drainage Amendment Bill. ARCHITECTS BILL. The Hon. A. L. HERDMAN moved that the Following Select Committee be set up to consider the Neiv Zealand Institute of Architects Bill:—Messrs. Clark, Craigie, Hanan, Hunter, Millar, Sidey, Yeitch, Pearce, "Wilkinson, and the mover. Mr. H. ATMORE (Nelson) asked whether an opportunity be given to builders who were in the habit of drawing their own plans to give evidence. The Minister replied in the affirmative. The motion was carried, and the Bill was referred to the committee. PREMIUM BONOS. PRIVATE BILL ROUGHLY HANDLED. Mr. A. HARRIS (WaitemafaTmoved:— "That a Select Committee be appointed, consisting of ten members, to consider the Premium Bonds Validation Bill; the committee to have power to call for persons and papers; the committee to consist of Messrs. 11. F. Bollard, Buddo, Clark, Ell, Mander, Millar, Myers, Statham, Veitch, and the mover."

Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) said that the House should bo told what there was about the Bill that called for the establishment of the committee. Tho interested company had sent round an agent, who lmil interviewed nearly every member of Parliament. For all they knew, the committee might be packed with men who were in favour of the measure, and tho judgment of the House as a result prejudiced." He urged that the Bill should be sent to the Public Accounts Committee. The PRIME MINISTER said that the Bill was being sent to a Special Committee because very few members were acquainted with the subject with which it dealt. Evidence should be called before a committee, and the evidence should be printed, so that members might peruse it before the Bill was dealt with in the House. The Public Accounts Committee had special duties, and was fully employed already. The matter dealt with in the Bill did not directly concern the Government, and the subject with which it dealt was essentially one which should be referred to a Special Committee. He ■understood that thousands of people in New Zealand held premium bonds, and were prevented in dealing in them by a decision of the Supreme Court some years ago. There was no harm, but on the contrary a large element of safety, in referring the question to a committee, so that the committee might report to Parliament whether the Bill should bo allowed to proceed or not. Mr. T. M. WILFORD (Hntt) said that he believed that if. this Bill went to the Special Committee, instead of being fought out in the House and the press, the promoters of the Bill would get what (hey wore after. It would be better to legalise "Tattersall's" than to legalise these premium bonds. He believed that the premium bond was tho greatest sample of a confidence trick ever tried in this country. If the Bill passed, the working people would be "exploited. If the Bill was to be sent to a committee at all, it should go to the Public Accounts Committee. The matter, however, should be thrashed out on the floor of the House. ■ A Gambling Bill.

Sir. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said that this was a gambling Bill pure and simple, and proposed to legalise certain things that if not illegaj were of doubtful legality. The committee included four Auckland members, and Auckland was the home of this proposal. Mr. Harris had taken no risks in nominating the committee. Although' the committee was to advise the House on law, it contained only one lawyer. He urged the Prime Minister not to throw his influence in favour of this Bill. He agreed that it would be just as proper to _ legalise Tattorsall's "sweep" as to bring in this form of gambling. The prizes offered were huge—it was just the class of thing that would appeal to the masses of the people. If the scheme were brought in, men and women canvassers would go about among the poorest people in the community. There was nothing genuine or fair about tire proposal. It was not right that Parliament should be asked to provide the people of the country with another hucre gambling machine. Ho hoped that the House would vote ngainst setting lip tho committee. . Mr. G. VT. FORBES (HurunuiJ attacked the Bill, and contended that tlie Houso should discuss its principle before sending it. to a committee, l'n send it to a committee in tliie first place was to admit that there was something in Hie principle. As a matter of fact they in tho House were opposed to tho principle of the Bill. Ho asked the Prime Minister not to give his countenaneo to a "shady measure of this kind." An Allegation Denied. The PRIME MINISTER said that he r-tai jfes?S jakresrssented, Mr, Jjjrbcs_

had said'tliat iu supporting the proposal to set up a committed to consider this bill ho was endeavouring to set. aside tho forms of the House and prevent a proper disou=siou. rie did not know whether tho honourable gentleman understood what he was saving or understood tho position. Ho (the Priuio .Minister) had suggested when tho Bill came up t.lio other night that it should not bo forced through at that time, but should b» referred to a .Select Committee. When the Bill came back from the committee opportunity would given for a debate equal to the second reading debate. Practically this would be the seoond reading debate. Every member of the Ilouso would have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the Bill. Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) contended tlmt the question of premium bonds did not involve any technicalities which necessitated the setting up of a committee. The report of the committee would bo used a? a lever in forcing tho Hill upon the country. At present tho Bill would only affect one firm in Now Zealand, but if passed it would open up widespread trafficking in these premium bonds. Mr. 11. ATMORJ3 (Nelson) said that the whole.question was so beautifully simplo that there was no need to set up a committee. He did not connect the Prime Minister with an attempt to introduce this gambling system* but he should sot his face against it. A Wrong Course.

Tho Hon. W. H. HERMES said that tho discussion seemed to be upon the Bill itself, and that was entirely wrong. Tho establishment of the committee was being opposed in order to kill the' Bill. The member in charge (Mr. Harris) had been given permission to move the second reading pro forma, which meant that the Bill must be referred to a committee. If tho House now refused to set up a committee, or to refer tho Bill to some committee, it meant that the member for Waitemata had been led into a trap, and that the Bill would be killed in an insidious way. He did not wish to express an opinion on the Bill, but tho House would act with great discourtesy to the member for Waitemata if it refused to give him a committee. Discussion would not l» barred, but would take place i whe.u the Bill came back from the committee. In moving the second reading pro forma, and referring the Bill to a committee, the, member for Waitemata had practically postponed the Bill until next session. It was erroneous to say that the Bill had been specially favoured. Mr. G. V. PEARCE (fatea) said he was distinctly opposed to the principle of premium bonds because they drew capital out. of the country for the benefit of people at Paris. At the same time it was hard upon people hero who held bonds that they would not dispose of them to others witling to buy. He thought a way of escape would be to permit present holders to sell and prevent any others from buying. Mr. W. NUS WORTHY (Ashburton) thought the report of the eommitteo would contain valuable information.

Mr. A. S. MALCOLM (Clutha) condemned the Bill. At the same time ho deprecated advantage being taken of tho Standing Orders to kill the Bill. Mr. Or. WITTY (Riecarton) objected to the way the committee was Leing set up. Tlie agent for the company had said he had seen as many members as he could. Possibly ho had seen the committee moro than others, and if that committee reported favourably, as it might do, then that agent would be able to state round the country that a committee of Parliament was in favour of the measure. That would (strengthen the position of the company. He would suggest that the committee should be withdrawn, and the measure sent to the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Harris: What's wrong with the committee? Mr. Witty: Well, to my mind, it is a committee that is likely to be biased. Mr. Harris: Have you any reason for that? Mr. Witty: Well, there are four Auckland members on it. (Laughter.) Tlie Bill Defended. Mr. HARRIS, in reply, said that lie regretted the bitter party spirit which had been displayed. He claimed that those who had criticised him knew nothing of premium bonds. The presence of the Auckland members on the committee was explained by the fact that Auckland held many thousands of premium bonds, and so knew most about them. Last year a petition, signed by 8000 people, had been presented to Parliament, praying that the sale of these bonds should be legalised. That petition had not had fair play, and was referred back to the Houso as being a matter of policy. Scores of people had written to him urging that he should take up this Bill, and after studying the matter he agreed to do so. It was incorrect to describe these bonds as a "gamble." They really were gilt-edged securities. Tho only thing was that the holders accepted a lower rate of interest— per cent.— on an accredited European institution, because of the chance of securing a prize. , A member: How many bonuses have come back to Now Zealand?

Mr. Harris: That I don't know-il am not prepared to say. His object in setting up a special committee was to let the House know something about premium bonds. There was need for the Bill, localise numerous bond-holders in Now Zealand were in a very difficult position. Tho company which carried on business in theso bonds had a capital of .£42,000. Mr. Young: How much paid rip? Mr. Harris said the,company had done all in its power to ascertain its legal position before entering upon business, and had had an assurance from the late Government and from solicitors that they could legally carry on their business. Suddenly, after eighteen months, n prosecution was launched against them, and their trailing was declared illegal. He did not care for the company, but he did caro for tho hundreds of bondholders. Chorus of< Objection. Mr. A. H. HINDMARSH (Wellington South) said the object of the Bill was not to help the bondholders but to cnabls the company to carry on business. Tho bondholders need not lose for presumably their bonds eonld be negotiated in France where they were issued. The Hon. W. F. MASSEY rose to reply to a statement, or ,an insinuation, by Mr. Ilindmarsh that lie (Mr. Massey) liad made up the Order Paper last year so as to prevent his Distress for Rent Bill coming oil. The Prime Minister had no more power, to manipulate the Order Paper on private members' days than had the member for Wellington' South, and if he had tho power he would not use it. '

Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) said that the House had heard nothing from Mr. ■Harris to justify his adherence to his specially selected committee. The danger of the Bill to the community was the putting into tho hands of one firm the sole power to handle big sums of money, invested in those European bonds, for the people of New Zealand, and there was no guarantee that this company would always remain financial. These bonds were hawked round from house to house by touts who assured the workers that they could always have a gilt-edged security bearing 24 per cent interest, and who held out <111 inducemont of a big prize occasionally. Mr. It. If. ISITT- (Christchurch North) paid he would like to vote against the Bill going to any committee, but he was perhaps to some extent committed, and lie would vote for the amendment to refer it to the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. D. H. GUTHRIE (Oroua) said the member for Waitomata had had nothing to do with the choosing of the committee. Mr. .T. A. HANAN (Tnvoreargill) said t.h<vt the member for Waitemata would be well advised to alter the personnel of his committee, and so meet the wishes of members somewhat suspicious of it. What was the objection to the Public Accounts Committee? Mr. Guthrie: Because they have plenty to do already. Jin Hanan urged that the Public Accounts Committee would be able to review the Bill from tho standpoint of public policy which was vJry desirable in view of the fact that there seemed to be a danger of traffic in these bonds fostering gambling. Mr. G. W. FORBES (Hnrunui) also thought the Bill should go to the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. J. H. BRADNEY (Auckland West) thought unwarrantable aspersions had been rost on the members of Mr. Harris's committee. Mr. D. BUICIC (Palmerston) said he would vote against the Bill, but in the moantinio he thought it ought to be referred to the committee. He was opposed to premium bonds, not because they were Bumbling slock, bill he objected to money going out of the enuirtrv for investment. Mr. C. E. STATU AM (Diniedin Central) answered the charges that tlis members .of Committer. hajJ _frees_ jSSfiWk.

selected. For his own part, lie was Euro that Air. Harris did not know his views on the Bill. He did not know lie was to ho on the Committee, and ho did not want to be on it. Tho amendment to refer the Bill to tho Public Accounts Committee was defeated by 40 votes to 21, and the motion was carried on the voices.

DAYLIGHT SAVING. AIR. SIDEY'S HARDY ANNUAL. Air. T. IC. SIDEY (Duncdin South) moved the second reading of tho Definition of Time Bill, which he said was virtually the same Bill as he introduced last session, under the title of the Daylight Saving Bill. He explained, however, that he had chosen the title of tho Bill because tho Bill did more than the Bill proposed last year, in that it supplied a want in our statute law to provide that the clock time all over New Zealand should be tho same. He had also mado nn alteration in the Bill to make the daylight-saying scheme apply only to the threo months of the year when the days were longest.

At this time—it was just after the result . arrived announcing that Mr. \Vebb had been returned for Grey—no one was taking much notice of Mr. Sidey. Indeed, owing to the buzz of conversation in the House, and the unusual noise in the lobby, it was quite impossible to hear him. At 2U minutes past eight Air. Sidey moved the second reading, and Mr. Speaker had put the question and called tor the ayes, before Mr. J. A, HANA,\ t , (Invercargill) rose to continue the debate. He said it was au undoubted fact that more people were working indoors now than formerly, that young people were taking less physical exercise, and that more young people suffered from weak health. It was therelore necessary, if we were to develop the hardy qualities of the race, that our young people should have an opportunity to exercise iu the open air. He hoped the House would accept the Bill. Mr. E. NEWMAN (Eangitikei) said that as the representative of a country district he regretted that he could not support the Bill, believing as he did that tho Bill would be detrimental to the country districts. Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) supported the Bill. Mr. T. AI. WILFOBD (Hutt) said that, as one interested in healthy sport, lie would heartily support the Bill. Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) expressed an earnest hope that the Bill would become the law of the land. He complained that farmers took a selfish view of the proposal. Mr. F. H. SMITH (Waitaki) opposed the Bill. Air. C. E. STATHAM (Dunedin Central) said that he had supported the Bill last year, and would support it this Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) said that the arguments which had been advanced against the Bill were of a very specious character. Air. J. H. BRADNEY (Auckland West) also announced that he would support the Bill. Mr. Ci. V. PEAI'CE (l'atea) said that every farmer in New Zealand would object to the Bill, and the dairy farmers mere especially.

I)r, A. X. NEWMAN (Wellington East) said that a great many people in the towns aesirecl to get tuis Bui through, it was a pity that town and couuiry could not bo separated in order to give effect to tho proposal contained iu tho iiill, so far, at least, as the towns were concerned. Arguments advanced by country members against the Bill seemed to bo to a great extent born of ignorance. SIB \vAJjTJAII BUCHANAN (Wailarupa) said Dr. Newman and Mr. Isitt held tho opinion that the intelligence of tho bucolic mind was oi; a very secomlrato kind. His experience in tnu House did not bear out this opinion, but rather inclined him to the opposite opinion. The townspeople ought to have more regard for the comfort and convenience.of country people. Mr. \V. NOSWORTIIY (Ashburton) said that lie had steadily opposed the Bill for years, and would-oppose it again. Ho was dead against unnecessary tinkering legislation. Mr. Cr. \V. FORBES (Hurunui) said that if sincerity and earnestness would ■carry any Bill in tho House, the Daylight Saving Bill would havo been.on the Statute Book long ago. Ke was, however, altogether opposed to the Bill.

Second Reading Carried. Mr. T. IC. SIDE!' (Dunedin South), in reply, argued that it would be impossible to bring in the scheme at all successfully without legislation. Tho second reading was carried, after a division, by 36 votes to 23. The Hon. A. L. Her'dman and tho Hon. P. M. B. I'isher voted for the Bill. Asked by Mr. Speaker when ho proposed to commit the Bill, Mr. Sidey said Wednesday, August G. Mr. Massey: Why don't you say December, and you'll be about right. > GAMING BILL. MR, WILFORD'S PROPOSALS. Mr. T. M. WILFORD (Hutt) moved : tho second reading of his Gaming Amendment Bill (tho ettect of which is to propose practically an unlimited increase in the number of totalisator permits that may legally lie issued in a year). Mr. Wilford said the Bill was so simple that he did not wish to explain it. The question had been put and "Ayes" called for, when Mr. J. A. HANAN (Invercargill) again roso to begin a debate on the Bill. He protested against such an important Bill being allowed to pass without an expression of opinion. He named members of tho Government individually, suggesting that they should have something to say about tho Bill. He named also members on both sides of the House, protesting against their silenco on a question in which they were interested. Mr. C. A. WILKINSON (Egmont) said he thought the House had a right to expect that the Bill should be more fully explained. The Bill proposed an enormous increase in the number of racing days. There could under it be racing on 2511 days. Mr. Wilford; That's tho number we have in the Act now. Mr. Wilkinson; Yes, but with this difference; that according to this Blil 50 clubs could raco on every one of those days. Mr. Wilford; Isn't that rather a tcductio ad absurdum? Mr. Wilkinson said it seemed to him that there were enough racing days in New Zealand now, but they were not fairly distributed. 'Many clubs could not get permits at all. Mr. Wilford; Thoso are provided for. Mr. Wilkinson; In a very absurd way. He went on to condemn the bookmaker and his trad» which, ho said, still flourished and did its evil work. Ho regretted to have to say, too. that the bookmaker was assisted generally in his business by '■ho Post Office.

Not Sufficient Explanation. Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) opposed the Bill, and he said that he would vote against it because he was opposed to all race gambling, no upbraided Mr. Wilford for haying refrained from taking the House into his confidence as to what the Bill meant, and assured Mr. Wilford that even if the Bill were read a second time it would certainly never get through Committee. Mr. A. HAIfKIS (Waitemata) also complained that the member for Hutt had not explained the Bill. Personally he was at a loss to know what tho Bill meant, but if it meant an indefinite increase in the number of racing days the House could scarcely allow tho Bill to pass. Mr. G. M. THOMSON (Duuedin North) said he did not think the member for Hutt was treating the House with proper courtesy in introducing so flippantly such an important Bill. He regarded an amendment ol' the legislation dealing with gaming or gambling as a very serious matter, and certainly not one to be treated so frivolously as the member for Hutt appeared to treat it. For his own part, he was opposed to the totalisator at every turn, and lie accounted it a grave disgrace to the country that, the Government drew revenue from the business of race gambling. The totalisator made gambling appear respectable, because it was legalised, lie would vote against any increase iu the number of racing days. The member for Jliiitl had apparently left a loophole by which the number of totalisator permits could ba increased indefinitely, and lie had offered no explanation. . Mr. Wilford: It's so simple. Mr. Thomson agreed that tiw tbJug laekssL

doubt Mr. Wilfonl was prepared to drive a coach and four through it. The Redistribution Question. Air. J. CI. CO ATE S (lvaipara) said lie thought the Hill was wrong in principlo in that it proposed to give the Government power tu increase indefinitely the number of racing days, but he would support the Bill because lie thought the present distribution ol' permits inequitable. Jf the Bill went into Committee he would do his best to have it altered. ; Mr. G. \Y. RIiSSELI, {Avon) said that in order to redistribute the racing permits the Government needed no extra authority trom Parliament. Some districts (rid too many racing days, and others had not enough, but the Government could without doing any wrong to the sport allocate the s again. l*or the present measure, it might well be thrown into the waste paper basket. Ho was not in favour of increasing the number of racing davs being of opinion that the gambling spirit had taken quite a strong enough hold of tins eoinitrv.

The Hon.'W. F. MASSEY (Prime Minkter) said he wished to clear up one point raised by the member for Avon. The member for Avon had mado a statement that the present Government had shirked its duties in connection with racing niatalU/ had handed over its responsibilities to the Racing Conference. The meaning intended to lie conveyed by that statement plainly was that there had been an innovation, that this was something new, and that previous Governments did not take the recommendation of the Racing Conference. He asked the honourable member was it not a fact that this system had been in operation for 12 or 15 yiars? The member ior Avon knew that this was so. He knew also that the Government had not accepted the recommendation of the Racing Conference ilast year. The Government tool: one day from Canterbury and one from Marton, and had given tho two days to Uil' KangitiKei duo, which they thought was treated unfairly by the Commission, lie was willing to admit that an injustice was done to some clubs by the distribution of permits. Mr. Russeli: It is in your power to remedy these abuses, and you haven't done so.

Air. Massey: We have only had one opportunity yet of dealing with the question. Air. Russell: What have you done this year? . Air. Massey: We have done nothing yet. He added that having admitted that there was injustice, the Government's next dutv was to remedy it, and this the Government would try to do. At 11.30 p.m. Air. J. A. Young moved the adjournment of the debate. The motion was seconded by Mr. D. 11. Guthrie. ■ Mr. Wilford protested in u speech of some ten minutes' duration against the adjournment, which, of course, lie recognised would "kill" his Bill. The adjournment was, however, carried on the voices. The House rose at 11.40 p.m.