PARLIARMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 63, 7 November 1912, Page 6

PARLIARMENT.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER G,

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (Per, Press Association.) Wellington, November 6 The Council resumed at -2.30.

The Land Agents Bill was pu

through committee with a new clause proposed by tho Minister, that a land agent should not be entitled to recover commission under the Bill unless: (I) He was tho holder of a license or (2) his engagement in a shle.or disposition of land was in the writing of the person to bo charged with such commis-

sion. It was further provided tha the Bill come into operation on Janu ai;y 1, 1913. The Bill was passed-

VARIOUS MEASURES PASSED. The 'Council did not insist 'on its amendments to the Taieri Land Drainage Bill. Tho following Bills were passed :—Shearers and Agricultnial Accommodation Amendment, Westport Harbour Amendment, Education Amendment, Opnnake Harbour Amendment.

In committee on the Plumbers’-Re-gistration Bid the Minister inserted an amendment in clause 22, to permit inspectors, who wore not registered or the holders- of a Royal Sanitary Institute certificate,' employed by local bodies to remain in such employment, after the expiration of one year (from the date of the Bill. The Council then adjourned. The Council resumed at 8 p.m.,

The Railways Authorisation Bill. Public Service Classification and Superannuation Amendment Bill* Napiei Harbour Board Amendment Bill were read a second time. .

' The Napier Harbour Board, Railway Authorisation and Public Service ClassificAtion Bills passed through all thenstages. ' „

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House resumed at 2.‘50.

DEFENCE POLICY

On resuming, Mr Myers asked the Prime Minister if the Defence Minister would be present at the proposed conference at Vancouver mentioned in the morning paper?. V N

Mr Massey replied that it was impossible for him , to state whether Mr Allen could bo present or not. Mr Allen would represent the Government on defence matters while in England, as well as other matters. It Was quite impossible- for him to make public the policy of the Government with regard to defence matters. ...

SHOPS AND OFFICES AMEND-

MENT BILL,

The Chairnfan of the Labour Bill: Committee reported that the committee had recommended that the Shops aiid Offices .Amendment Bill shonld b’< allowed to prpcced.

Mr Ell urged that the House simple proceed with the Bill this session.

Mr Isitt contended that the Premiei Would be responsible for what would happen if the Bill Ivere not proceeded with this session. Some ten thousand people, he continued, whre affected by the proposed Bill,; and , those would look to the Prime Minister for an ex- ■ planation. ‘ '.-V V

Mr Veitch, appealed for consideration of the workers. • . Mr Russell ,spoke in a similar vein He'knew that the Premier was in sympathy with the proposals and should put them through. It would onlytake half an hour.

Mr Olcey said that- the committe had received telegrams, from all ovc the country, asking for an opportunit; to give evidence in regard to the Bill

Mr Atmore declared that the Laboir Bills Committee Was practically unanimous in favour of the Bill. Parlia meiit should stand for the principle that every man and woman in Nev Zealand was entitled to one day’s .rest a week. .

Mr Hindmareh moved that committal of tiro Bill should he made the order of the day for 5 p.m. / Mr, Fisher said that he first introduced the Bill in 1907, and it had been brought in during every session .sinca that. It had been kept under by the previous administration. ’Mr Millar had described it as- a piece of class legislation. , The Prime Minister had given a pledge to allow the objectors sufficient time to give evidence and that was a. fair attitude. The Prime Minister had promised to have tin Bill passed next year. He asked if there was any possibility of getting the Bill through this session. Mr Massey denied that he had ever given a pledge to pass the Bdl this year, and had suggested to a deputation; a doubt that he would be able to deal with it in any way this session The Bill included private hotels and boardinghouses. Next session he would bring down a comprehensive Shops and Offices Bill, and full provision would be made for the taking of evidence.

Sir Joseph Ward said that as Mr Massey had given a pledge about the hearing of evidence, it would only he honourable for the House to keep this promise.

The question was talked out, and the House adjourned.

Other Bills.

On resuming at 7.30 p.m. the House went into committee on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and the Public Bodies Empowering Bills, which were reported and read for the third time.

Welfington, November 7. •

In the House after 2 a.m. the discussion on the State-guaranteed Advances Amendment Bill continued. On the motion tor the second reading of the Bill Sir J. G'; Ward said that 75 per cent of the members • who had voted on Mr Hunan’s amendment had not read the evidence taken before the Committee. They were condemning him unheard. Responsible heads of Departments had given evidence that no political influence had been exercis-

cd in regard to loans to local bodies

The Hon. Mr Allen said again that the Board would be acting illegally in committing the country to loans two or three years ahead.

Mr G. W. Russell said the Minister should protect departmental officers. He wanted to know which member of the Board was to be removed according to the resolution passed by the House.

After further discussion, Mr Myers appealed to the Minister to consider the purport of the report. The carrying of it must mean tho losing of positions of some members of the Board.

Mr R. Smith moved that the question at issue bo referred to a Judge before effect is givc.ii to the Comrnit‘tee’s recommendations. The Hon. Mr Fisher contended that the purport of the report was to get rid of the Board, not to embarrass any civil servant. The Hon. Mr Allen said he had never imagined or suggested that any political influence had been used by any members of tho Board, but he did not consider it in the interests of the country that the administration of the Department should be changed.

At' 4.30 the Hon. Mr Massey rose and said that the Committee could have brought down no other report. He recognised that the chairman of the-Board was a zealous ■ officer. The only intention of the report was to replace two members of the Board by two business men.

Mr Smith’s amendment was lost on division by 37 votes to 26.

■ A division was taken at 7.30 a.m. on the committee’s report, which was adopted, the voting being 36 to 36.

The House then went into committee on the State-guaranteed Advances Bill.

Adjourn For Breakfast

Wellington, November 7

In the House the State-guaranteed Advances Bill was read, a third time and passed. The House adjourned for breakfast at 8.25 and resumed at 9.30.

On resuming the Monopolies Prevention Amendment, Fisheries Amcnd'raent, Harbour Amendment, and Sharping and Seamen’s Amendment Bills, were put through all stages and passed without amendment., i 1 "Mokau” u'onss.

/. On tlie debate on the Joshua Jones committee’s report, Mr McCallum said he did not approve of the Government granting compensation for loss sustained in private dealings. Tim report of the committee found against Mr Jones on all issues, yet wished to award him £3OOO.

Mr Statham expressed the opposite opinion, claiming that Mr Jones had done considerable service to the country in bringing about peace in the King Country in the middle of the ’7o’s. Mr Statham reviewed the whole history of the Mokau transactions and thought the action of the Ward Government in granting the freehold to Mr Lewis had damaged Mr Jones’ chances of getting the, estate, and the case was therefore one for compensation. Mr Wilford contrasted the Government’s action in this, case with its action in connection with that of the captain of the Elingamite, who for ten years had been unemployed and practically under the stigma of manslaughter through faulty charting of the New Zealand coast.

Mr MacDonald challenged Mr Statham to repeat in public some of the statements he had just made under privilege. He contended that Mr Statharn, while professing to review the whole case, had omitted to state the most important fact, viz., that the Order-in-Council stipulated that Mr Lewis must cut up the estate for settlement within three wears.