PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81840, 5 September 1906, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. [BY TliLEflltAPil —I'JiIiSS ASSOCIATION.] The House met at 2.30. HOUR OF SITTING. The PREMIER moved, by. leave ot the House, that the House sit cm wiihout supper adjournment in the evening. He agreed at the same time that it shall be an understanding that no speech shall be taken up after io-45- llis ob - iect " aS "J rise every night on tiic financial Debate between 11 and 11.30. Mr MASSEY preferred to take the supper adjournment, and go on ti.l 12 or 12.30. After an informal discussion, tne motion was carried by 54 to 17. , LANDLESS NATIVES BILL. The NATIVE MINISTER moved the second reading, explaining the object, namely,' to allocate and legalise the titles to certain lands set aside by Royal Commission in the South Island for the benefit of the landless natives of that Island, which in the purpose of this Act includes Stewart Island. Mr HERRIES congratulated the Minister, but considered the land provided insufficient. Mr A. L. D. ERASER and Mi FIELD spoke. Mr PARATA complimented the Government, but complained 011 the insufficiency of. the land, and urged the reference of the Bill to the Nattive Affairs Committee.

The PREMIER was glad to see such a Bill before the House, and would be still more glad to see it made perfect by the Native Affairs Committee. Mr NGATA we'eomed the Bill as being iij the right, direction, and eulogised the late Mr Taiaroa and Mr Parata for the persistence with which they had advccated the claims of their fellow-countrymen for jus-

tice.. . . The MINISTER having replied, the till was read a second time on the voices, and referred to the Nattive Affairs Committee. The House adjourned at 5.15. EVENING SITTING. THE FINANCIAL DEBATE. The House resumed at 7.30, Mr MASSEY opened the Financial Debate, lie did so with mixed feelings, for whi.e there was much in the financial proposals of the Government of which he approved and would support, there w r as much on the other hand of which he disapproved and would oppose at the right time. The'first set of proposals—the provision for sinking funds, audit, etc. —formed the highest compliment that coutd be paid' tq the Opposition. He would like to see more of their advice taken. For instance, he would revoke those sections of the Public Revenue Act

which, in defiance of constitutional principle, curtail the powers of the House and increase those of the Government; then Parliamentary sup-' ervision would complete the financial control. Moreover, the system of reporting to Parliament was slipshod, and ought to be amended. Ho denied the surplus of ,£786,000 011 the ground that a sum of ,£750,000,

ordered to be transferred from the surplus of the last year of £761,000, was not so transferred. Only half a million was transferred, consequently £261,000 was used for two surpluses. He denied also the soundness of the Education Superannua tion Fund, as the report of the actuary requiring the strengthening of that fund by £17,000 had not been given effect to. These two items, together with an item of trust funds, made .an amount of over £300,000, which ought to be subtracted from (be surplus. The raising of the last oan in Australia had humiliated this

country by the payment of a higher rate of interest than that at which tiie neighbouring countries had got

their loan at. It was also an admission of the unsoundness of our credit in London. It was certainly not a sign of prosperity. A s l" that, one might suppose that theGovcrnment, which claimed for it, made the sun shine. In the face of the larger Australian export per head, and the difference in the loan expenditure, it was not right to exaggerate the prosperity which undoubtedly existed. The fact was, we must reduce the rate of borrowing. The increase of expenditure of the Consolidated Fund exceeded the revenues increagexby ;£i 84,948. (He then went on to deal with the Land policy, as reported in another column.) The Hon. Mr McNab followed.

Mr MERRIES, after speaking on the land proposals, said for the Budget he had much to say in praise, and something the reverse. He criticised the railway management, which is .disfigured by more accidents in proportion than the management of the railways in Britain, and that with less shunting. The Hon. G. FOWLDS, af,tor dealing with Mr Herries and the Leader of the Opposition's criticism ;>f the land policy, came to ty[r i\la§«y's criticism of the surplus. 'He denied there \vas any "direction to transfer last year £750,000 to the Public Works Fund. The words of the Approbation Act were: "The transfer of any sum net exceeding £750,000.'' As .for his flaunt about ihe credit of the colony in London, there are many circumstan.cefj which make it inadyisabUi to go to t.ie London market—largo loans applied for by other countries, for instance. It was unpatriotic of the hon. gentleman to ignore that point in his criticism. For the rest lie characterised the criticisms of the lion, gentleman as ancient and c>(nloded. Me concluded by referring to the subject of education, and oxplained the absence of reference to the same in the Budget. Me pointed out that the bones and flesh of a fine system have been already provided, into which ho proposed to breathe the breath of life. The Government intend to begin by making University education free to all who pass their junior scholarship exams, with credit. The Mouse adjourned at 11.30 ti'l 2.10 next ray (Wednesday), when the debate will be continued.