PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 56, 11 July 1913, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

THURSDAY, JULY 10. MOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wellington, July 10. The House met at 2.30 p.ra. THE SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC. The Hon. 11. H. Rhoces, replying to Mr J. A. Young, said that every precaution was being taken to prevent the spread of the disease existing rmong the natives in the Auckland province. The Department was seeing to the isolation of those affected. WESTPORT HARBOUR BOARD. The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher moved to set up a committee to inquire and report upon his action in appointing Messrs Gillen and Siriipson to the Westport Harbour Board, the committee to consist of Messrs H. Atmore, J. Colvin, G. Laurenson, L. M. Isitt, R. Scott, R. F. Bollard, C. E. Ratham, E. P. Leo, J. H. Bradney, ind the mover. .. Mr Colvin objected to the order of reference. What was wanted was a 'ommittee to inquire into the affairs >f the Westport Harbour Board, into lie way accounts had been kept, and vhy certain officers had been dismissal.' Mr Fisher said that the committee lad nothing to do with the Harbour Joard’s matters, nor had the Commission he proposed to set up to deal with hat matter. • Mr Colvin: “I will not sit on the •ommittee. I do not want that comnittee.” Mr Fisher said he would go on trial whether the Opposition wanted it or not. Mr G. Witty said that neither Mr 'fisher, Mr Colvin, nor Mr Atmore should sit on a committee which was •eally going to sit to try Mr Fisher. Mr T. M. Wilford said the Government was side-tracking Mr Colvin’s ind Mr Atmore’s charges. The comnainant and the defendant were acting as their own judges. / The Hon. J. Allen justified the set/ing up of the committee as proposed )y Mr Fisher. Insinuations had been nade, and should be cleared up. . Mr Atmore: “I did not insinuate. r made a distinct charge and am premised to prove it up to the hilt.” The Hon. A. L. Herdman contendd that the Minister of Marine had icted unwittingly in the .matter. It ras quite proper to set up the committee proposed. ■ . , ,Mr R. McCallum hoped that the vrder of reference would be widened :o as to allow the whole of the maters. of the Westport Harbor Board tc re, investigated,

Mr G.,-Forbes protected against aMinister sitting oni his own commit:ee, adjudicating upon his own case, ind voting upon his own verdict. The'Hon. F. M. B. Fisher, in reply. ;aid that an impression had been creitod outside the,House, and it was so intended, that he had made appointnents to the Westport Harbour Board plowing the appointees to have been 'onvicted of offences, which discreditid him as a public man. He con;ideml it a fair thing that the memicrs of Nelson and Buffer should lie m one side and himself on the other. Hie desired the committee to show that he did not knowingly appoint a member to the Westport Harbour Soard whose character was not what it should be.

The question was then put and the committee set up, after Mr At more bad asked that his name should herein oved. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE. The Hon. Jas. Allen laid on the table a statement giving the financial letails for the last quarter. The receipts for the June quarter, 1913, were £2,598,518, for 1912 £2,477,498, a. total increase of revenue of £121,020. The expenditure account for the same periods was for this year’s quarter £2,629,288, and for the last year £2,502,226. Mr G. W. Russell said that there had been an increase of expenditure for the quarter amounting to £127,062. During the corresponding period of last *y ear the then Government had had to pay £20,000 for elections and census expenses. If that; was remembered it would lie seen how fai

the promises of reform varied from performances. The Hon. W. H. Herries said that the expenditure had increased because of the facilities given to the public and the increase of railway servants wages. Were the Opposition in favor of reducing wages to ’<eep the expenditure down? Any wasteful expenditure now going on was due to works started by their predecessors. - Mr Isitt contended that the question was not that the expenditure had increased, but that the Government was now doing the very thing it had condemned in its predecessors. Mr Lauronson declared that all the pledges of economy had been broken. The Hon. J. Allen, in reply, domed that the Massey party ever complained at increasing the expenditure. What they denounced was the wasteful expenditure going on. When the Budget came down members could see what had been dope in the direction of checking that expenditure.

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY. A PARTY AMENDMENT. Tim debate on tl.io Address-in-Reply was continued. Mr J. H. Rradney regretted that the Government liad continued its predecessor’s policy of workmen’s homes. The system was absurd and wasteful. Tie, advocated annuities on the insurance principle and was in favour of a loan for railway construction only. He expressed continued confidence in the Massey Government. Mr J. Craigie favored an elective

executive and suggested the appointment of G. M. Thompson, of Dunjdin North, as Minister of Education. Phis would allay widespread discontent amongst teachers. He denounced die granting of the freehold and favored closer settlement. He moved an imendment favouring the imposition jf a graduated and ever-increasing land tax for the purpose of providing land for settlement, ,

The Hon. J. Allen said that the Government would accept the amendment as a party one. Mr G. \V. Husspll explained ■ thpt Mr Craigie had not consulted the Opposition and was acting entirely on his own behalf, j The House resumed at 7.30. Mr Craigie asked the permission of the House to add the word “graduated” to his amendment, eo as to make it read “ever-increasing graduated land tax.”

Mr Allen objected, and the amendment remained as previously stated. The amendment was seconded by Mr T. K. Sidey.

Mr H. M. Campbell dealt with land ■natters. He contended that the graduated land tax had gone, up to £BO,100 annually. He thought beer should be taxed to the extent of twopence per gallon. If the tax were put on the public the outcome would be a State brewery. He thought also that the Government should appoint inspectois to test the quality, of liquors sold in hotels. - ■ ,< < •

Mr A. S. Malcolm intimated that he desired to touch upon matters relative to the Bank of; New Zealand and the .state. He appeared as neither ounsel for the Bank nor for the State. .Ho then proceeded to give a review if the history of the Bank. On the whole of the capital subscribed during 16 years only £1 Is 6d per cent, nad been The sum of £l,,)57,046 had been written off, ajsp i)770,1G6 of reserve funds. He contended that, before any alteration was nade In the constitution of the Bank dve amounts written off should be written on again,, because, the Bank was now making money/ Greedy eyes were cast upon It. The Bank had kept every one of the obligations imposed upon it by the State. In 1903 .lie State said, “You are making more money than we thought you would,” ■>o forthwith legislation was introduced and a millioh advanced to the Bank, in condition that the State got the balance of voting power on the directorate, and the shareholders were outvoted in consequence. Mr Beauchamp’s present proposals were undoubtedly to the detriment of the

shareholders. ! Cries of ‘No.”. Mr Malcolml continuing, said that they could not burn the (jiefeijce candle at both ends. They must 'remember BMH militbfy defence was costing a large sum. Naval defence could not be undertaken except at an enormous increase of that expenditure. Ho advocated. representation on the Imperial Federation Committee.

Mr J. Robertson followed. Replying ro statements made by Mr Herdman regarding,al}pged breaches 'of the law at Waijii, he> urged 'tfft|t thfe'■circumstances demanded an enquiry. Mr Cl. Witty-'disclairncd that the Opposition had any connection with Mr ■; Craigie’s amendment which, owing to the Government’s discourtesy not permitting him to amend it, did not accurately represent what he meant.. The Opposition was in favor of increasing the graduated tax, but not of an i ‘ever-increasing land tax,” which might be construed to mean increased taxation on small farmers. Mr A. H. Hindm.arsh criticised the policy of tlie Government in advertising land in inaccessible positions. Why did they not break up the. large I estates? The Premier dare not put cn a tax enough to do so. He would bo turned down by his party if he did so. He demanded , .an enquiry into the proceedings at Waihi. He criticised the Premier’s action in treating the amendment on the land .question as a want-of-confidence motion. Would lie treat a motion on defence or the liquor traffic in the same way? He thought not. If a member of the Government Party voted in favor of the amendment he would be asked.to .leave the party. Mr G. W. Russell said that the Opposition had entire sympathy with the policy of stopping aggregation, hut the present amendment was not officially recognised by them, because in its present form it did not represent the views of the party. Mr W. I). McDonald deprecated the Government treating the amendment, not recognised by the Opposition, as a direct challenge.