PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2270, 2 October 1914, Page 7

PARLIAMENT

LICENSING' LAW,

STRENGTH OF NEW ZEALAND WINE. : LOCAL RAILWAYS. CAMINC BILL' IN THE COUNCIL. ' The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m., and at 2.46 p.m. adjourned till 8 p.m. as; a mark of . respect for the memory of tie late Hon. I'. Fergus. GAMING AMENDMENT BILL. Tho Gaming Amendment Bill was committed when the Council resumed." The Hon. S. T. GEORGE moved to delete Clause 31 from the Act of 1908. Clause 31 states that tliere majr be only one totalisator at a race meeting, and, Mr. George's object in asking for its I deletion was to allow clubs to run i double totalisators. Ho gave as his reason for this course that the bookmakers throve on double betting, and that the competition of the machine would weaken them, 'and tlius lielp to do away witli a means of daily betting. The Hon. 0. A. 0. HARDY, who was in charge of the Bill, said that he would be glad to accept the amendment. The Hon. J. T. PAUL said that the deletion of the clause' would not fove the effeot which' Mr. George imagined, because most of tlie . double betting would be done long before the bettors reached the course, and, therefore, the double totalisator would not be a serious competitor against the . bookmaker. 1 " The Hon. H, D. BELL said that Clause 31 was passed when the bookmakers got the right of admission to the racecourses, and it was but reasonable that now that the purpose of passing tho clause had disappeared the clause itself should be repealed.' The .Hon. 0. LOTJISSON ,pointed out that people now'backed doubles before even the weights were , out,' and the bookmakers got. the benefit of all the selections of non-starters. With tho machine, only starters would be backed, and the public would thereby be pro-' tected, and would get a run for their money.. In these circumstances people would not be so anxious to take doubles in advance. •* ' The Hon. W. IARNSHAW said that while members of the, that they wished to, lessengambling they proposed ,to legalise a machine "tq in- • crease gambling. / The Hon. T. M'GIBBON said that he ■had voted for the second reading of the Bill on the. previous day, but if Mr.-" George's motion was carried, he was going to vote' against , the Bil} on the third reading. He did not believe in' increasing the facilities for gambling. . The Hon. W. BEEHAN said that if people wanted the machine he did not see why tliey s should not have it. Tho Hon. A. T. MAGINNLTY remarked that if the law was carried out effectively the bookmaker would be'ddne away with. ' j - The Hon. J. ,D. ORMOND said that, though he had not made a "bet for years, lie favoured the clause as an effective means of dealing with, the bookmaker, who had had the sole right'to ; this kind of betting. ■ r - The motion to"delete'i Clause 31 was lost on a division by 12 votes to 8. The ayes were: Hons. H. D. Bell, C. A. C. Hardy,;S T. George, W., Itcehan, Dr. Collins, J. D. Ormo'nd, and C. H. Mills. ' The noes were: Hons. ;J. G. W. Aitken, J. Duthie, J. >T. Paul, T. M'Gibbon, G. Jone6, W. Earnshaw, R. Moore, J. Fisher, A. T. Magimiity, R. K. Simpson, Major Harris, 'and Sir William Hall-Jones.

The Bill was reported from Commit- i tee without amendment, was read a 1 third time, and passed. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. On the motion, to commit, the Medi- : cal Practitioners Bill, . . / ... | The Hon. ,W. BEEHAN said that the ; Bill should'be postponed and Copies cir- : culated to the, friendly societies and : members of the medical profession. 1 The Hon. G, JONES expressed the opinion that the Bill would create a close corporation which would have far too much power. • The Hon. ,H. D. BELL said that there was 110 semblance of a close corporation. The Government, wliti had no concern at all in the matter except the public interest, had satisfied' itself that the Bill was in •the; public interest. Tlie present Act was defective as there was no provision to remove a name from the register. The intention of the Bill was that only duly qualified men should be registered, and that anyone who misbehaved should be removed from the register. The Bill was committed, and in Committee the number of the board who 1 shall form a quorum was altered from five to four. The penalty for failure to notify a change of address was altered from £5 to "not exceeding £5." The schedule of fees was amended to make tlie amount to be paid upon the deposit of diploma, or othor evidence of quail-, fication, £3 3s. instead of £5 6s. The Bill was reported with these amendments, and was then read a third time and passed.. ' A PROTECTION OF ANIMALS; The Animals' Protection Bill' was put through Committee without amendment, read a third time, and<passed. • '■ At 10.56 p.m. the Council rose till 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday. THE HOUSE The House o f. Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. , Seven days' leavo of absence was granted to ,tho Hon. J. A. Miller on account of illness. NEW BILLS. The New Zealand University Amendment Bill was introduced by Governor s Message, read a- firsb time, and referred to the Education Committee'. Tho Coal Mines Amendment Bill and the Mining Amendment Bill, introduced by Governor's Message, were read a first time and referred to the' Mines Commitee. The State Advances Amendment Hill was introduced by Governor's Messago and read a first time. THE LICENSINC LAW. STRENGTH OF NEW ZEALAND ' WINE. The Eight Hon. W. P. MASSEY moved that tho amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Licensing Amendment Bill should bo agreed to. Explaining tho Council's amendments, Mr. Massey said it was proposed that at election polls there should only he tine deputy returning officer. instead of two at the'small booths. It was reckoned that £4000: or £5000. could be Raved in this way. A clauso had been inserted to remedy a defect found in the Licensing Law, by making it perfectly clear that.a temporary license could bo granted by tho chairman and two members without these three people having to meet for the purpose. Regarding the taking of liquor into No-Licenso v areas, it was proposed that instead of the liquor being taken to a depot (as appeared 'to be the practice) it must be taken direct to tho purchaser. As no licensee could supply the liquor

' to anyone under twenty-one, it was proposedthat no oile under that ago should be allowed to'sell it. Instead of a general £10 fee for wine-makers' licenses, the fee would'be levied according to tlie quantity of the' liquor made. The clause limiting New Zealand-made wino to a proof strength of 20 per cent. had. been so altered that the limit had been removed. Mr. L. M. Isitt: If you don't have some limit they will fortify the liquor. Mr. Mnsscy said that he belioved that if they made a limit they should not make it'less thaii 40 per cent., as this was necessary if. the makers were to turn out good wine which would keep. Mr. Isitt: I would sooner see that than no limit. Mr. A. HARRIS (Waitemata) thought iP>at tho Council had much improved the Bill. Ho thought that a limit should bo placed on tho proof strength of New Zealand-made wino, and with this. object in view he moved as an amendment that the amendments should be agreed to with the exception of the one which concerned the manufacture and sale of' New Zealand wine. The clause as it stood in 'the Bill, prescribed for . tho maximum strength. In reply to a question Tho Right Hon. W. F. MASSEY said that he intended to go on with his proposal to appoint a Commission to investigate tho state of things in the King Country, which he knew from personal observation were not now satisfactory either to Prohibitionists or modcrates. The amendment was eanried and' the Prime Minister, Mr.. Mac Donald, and Mr. Harris were appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing. LOCAL RAILWAYS TO BE BUILT BY SETTLERS TO HELP THE BACK-BLOCKS. The Hon. "W. FRASER (Minister of ' Public Works) moved the second reading of tho Local Railways Bill. For years past, he said, a desire had been ovinced by settlers in districts to go on with the construction ,of railways very necessary for them, which the Government were not prepared to undertake. Last year an Act had been passed to permit of the construction of such railways by the local bodies concerned, but as lie had feared the Act had not proved workable. Local bodies were elected for purposes very different from the construction of railways, and although some local' bodies- were quite competent to build railways, others were neither competent nor willing to. undertake tho. work. Under this Bill it settlers wished to have a railway built in their district their first action must bo to petition the Government to have a district "declared." • In that district, once declaied, a Railway Board would be elected, with proper borrowing, rating, and administrative powers. Ha believed the measure would be a workable one, and a valuable one to the country settlers. "

SIR JOSEPH WARD (Awarua) said .ho believed the BiU would do ail immense amount of harm to New Zealand. It would he highly dangerous te give to local boards t'he. powers now wielded by the Minister of Railways, who was responsible to Parliament and the people. There might be 150 districts under this Bill. The Bill was also highly dangerous because the Government would always have to pay more for the acquisition of any of these private railways than the original cost of building them'.' The proper function of the-' Government was to find money for theso branch railways—(laughter)—a-nd "not; to have a -system of funkers." He declared amid loud an'dVjub'ilA.ivir from certain members'' 'arid' "laughter' from the Government benches, that the rßill was intended to help the large'landoivn'ers; - It'was "an insidious attempt to establish a new system of railways for the people of this country." 'He urged that Parliament should irfsist upon the employees of these, private railways receiving similar rates of pay with provision for . superannuation to those which existed ia the State railway service." What Could be Fairer? Mr. E. NEWMAN (Rangitikei) said it was very difficult to follow the exaggerated speech of the Leader of the Opposition, having regard to what the real object of the Bill was. The Bill was intended "to enable 'back-country settlers to. make railways for themselves and-so develop'the country, leaving to the Government the .right to acquire the railways .at. any'future time at a price to be determined by arbitration. Could anything be fairer? Settlers had been asking for years and years for'railways and the reply had been in very many cases that no funds were available. Now the Government submitted a proposal to enable the settlers to build their own railways, and the proposal would be -welcomed by the settlers. In his own district there was a private railway or tramway which had served the settlers extremely well, better than any road. It was absurd to say that the Bill would enable landowners'to enhance the value of their own property. If the landowners paid for the railways themselves, as they would under the Bill, surely there could be no objection to their enhancing the value of their own properties. • He. welcomed the Bill, and he was 1 sure the country settlers would welcome it.

Mr. W. A. VEITCH (Wanganui) declared that the Minister did not know what would be the effect of the putting of his own Bill. .He objected to. the representatives on .the board being elected only by the ratepayers. He predicted that the effedt of the system would bo to create railway kins;,s just as there wero land kings and commercial monopolists already in New Zealand. .He urged the Minister to 'amend the Bill to provide that all rating under it should be on unimproved value. Different Points of View. Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchure'h North) opposed the Bill. Mr. D. H. GUTHRIE: (Oroua) said' ho was astonished at the offered to what would be considered'by people in the country as one of the best Bills over introduced in this. country.. For many years settlers in certain districts badly in need of railways had been _ willing to undertake the 'building of railways which the Government could not build, but the Government of past years, adopting a dog-in-the-manger policy, would not allow them to help themselves. The member for Awarua, the member for Wanganui, and the member for Christchurch North had all tried to draw a red herring across the scent by suggesting that'tliere was danger to the country, and danger to tho country's railway enterprise in the proposal to allow settlers to build light railways. But surely settlers ought not to be denied the right to help themselves when they were prepared to do' it? Would any honourable gentleman on tho other sido of tlie House vote against a Bill wliieh would deny .to t'hose men in tho back country the 'right to malto .communications for themselves which would bo much. cheaper than any attempts on their part to'make roads? He assured tho House that tho object of the Bill was not to allow private people to build railways to competo with tho State rail- " Tho Hon. D. BTJDDO (Kaiapoi) objected to the Bill because he did not anurove of private railways. • Mr. C. A. WILKINSON (Egmont) warmly commended tlie Bill. In his own clistrict the settlers required a line and had' approached tlie Government time after timo with proposals for tho building, of that railway. The Government had dono nothing, however although tho settlers had offered to find the nioney to pay tho interest on the loan that would bo necessary 'to build the railwav. Tho railway wn.»

especially necessary in tlie Egmont district, because roads wore expensive and difficult to maintain. If Bottlers wore allowed to spend as much as they liked on making roads —and tho local bodies in liis district had spent up x to £2000 a mile in building roads—surely they should be allowed to spend money on tho making of light railways. The Bill had been debated on strictly party lines, aiid it was a good thing that tho country should know exactly where tho two parties stood on this question. Ho would have great pleasure in drawing the attention of his electors to tho attitude of the party in .Opposition, who, in effect, said to the settlers: "We will not allow you to help yourselves by building your own railways unless it is our good pleasure to build t'hem for' you." Mr. J. M'COMBS (Lyttelton) said lie would vote for tho second reading of the Bill to affirm tho principle that settlers requiring a railway should bo allowed to build it for themselves-. Of the methods proposed in the Bill forputting this principle into practice he did not approve, however, and unless there were, radical alterations he would vote against the third reading. Mr. R. M'OALLUM (Wairau) opposed the 'Bill. The only good point in it, lie declared, was the repeal of the obsolete clause enabling the construction of private railways. Mr. C. K. WILSON (Taumarunui) supported the Bill, arguing strongly for the settlers'. rights to improve their own communications to enable them to market their produce and farm their lands effectively. The Hon. R. JI'KENZIFy (Motueka) said ho recognised tho need for district railways/or tramways, but lie did not believe that the proposal in the Bill .was at all a safe one. He would prefer to see the Govcnimeht raise a loan and go on with the construction of these district railways. Mr. H. J. H. OKEY (Taranaki) said that the Bill would be hailed\with delight in his and other districts. Mr. J. A. HANAN (liivercargill) said ho would rote against the Bill. / Mr. J. H. BRADNEY (Auckland West) said the Bill would provo to be in tilie best interests of the people of this .country. Mr. J. H. ESCOTT (Pahiat-ua)' supported tlie Bill, and expressed l surprise at the Opposition'.members' objections to it. The opposition to the Bill was continued by Messrs. G. Witty, J. Payne, and H. G. Ell. , Mr. J. A. Young supported the Bill, and Mr. W. ,D. S. Macdonald, while not approving of the Bill altogether, said he would not vote against it. The debate was still in progress when we went to press. (Left sitting.)