Parliament

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 49, 18 July 1914, Page 5

Parliament

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. FRIDAY, JULY 17. AFTERNOON SESSION. lh- Telegraph.—Press Association. | Wellington, Last Night. Hie Legislative Council met at 2 3;': p.m. lions. 0. Samuel, ,1. MacGregor R K Simpson, W. Morgan, R. Moore, J. MeGibbon and J. Fisher were sworn in. The usual sessional committees wee set up. On the motion of Hon. Bell, it was decided that the Fire Brigades Amendment Bill be taken at next sitting. The Council rose at 2.45 p.m. house of representatives. Afternoon session. The House met at 2.30 p.m. SECOND READINGS. Mr. J. M. Thomson moved the second reading of the Presbyterian Church Property Act, 18S5, Amendment Bill, a measure for the more effective vesting in trustees of property held for the use and purposes of any congregation. Mr. Thomson explained that the power asked for was necessary in view of the, extension of the social side of the Church's work. The second reading passed without debate. THE EDUCATION BILL. Mr. Oraigie asked the Minister of Education, without notice, whether he would permit evidence to be given to show why the South Canterbury Education Board should not be abolished under the new Education Bill. In reply, the. (Minister said that personally ho did not care what boundaries were agreed upon, so long as the districts were reduced in number. That could be done quite well by th'e Education Committee without taking special evidence. MOTOR REGULATION. Mr. Hcrdnian introduced the Motor Regulation Bill, under which all motorears will be licensed and registered, and drivers are also to 'be licensed, the fees to be apportioned between the Consolidated Funds and the local bodies interested. Mr. Wilford urged that the tax should take the form of a tax upon tyres collected through the Customs House. Mr. Massey did not agree with that view, and said the tax should be based on the values and horse-power of the car. Sir Joseph .Ward considered they wanted more information as to how many cars were Tunning in the Dominion iu order to arrive at an idea of how much taxation was to be raised. Mr. Hindmarsh urged that in case if accident the car, and not the owner, should be held liable for damages. Mr. Russell protested against the Bi'l as a form of class tax. The Bill was read a first time. LAND AND INCOME TAX. Mr. Allen moved the second reading of the. Land Tax and Income Tax Bill. He j stated that it made, no alteration in [ the amount of the tax levied. Sir Joseph Ward asked if Mr. Allen would supply the House with information as to the effect of the stepping system introduced by the Treasurer in connection with the ordinary land tax. By how much had the system increased the taxation, and the number of taxpayers?

■Mr. ftfassey. in reply, declared that there bad not been any increase in the rate of the land-tax levied since his Government had come into office. The only people, whose land tax had iucrcn-.-ed were those whose valuations had ffone up beyond the increase made in the graduated tax. There had been no legislation introduced by tile Government increasing taxation, in spite of what the leader of the. Opposition liad stated from the public platform. Sir Joseph Ward denied that he had ever said the Government had by legislation increased the indirect taxation, hut that did not alter the fact that tha taxation bad increased by 10s Id per head under a Government that had promised to reduce, taxation. Mr. Russell declared that since Mr. Massey had declared as part of the "Reform" platform that taxation must be reduced the taxes taken from the people had increased by £1,097,000. Mr. Allen, in reply, said that one of the reasons why a Customs Bill had not been brought down last year was the waste of time resulting from the stonewall. There was no encouragement for the Government to bring down reduction o1 taxation. There was no alteration in the land tax last year. The second reading of the Bill was agreed to. THE LIBEL LAW. Mr. Uerdman moved the second r.-'i.l-iug of the Defamation Bill. He was satisfied that members would find 'lie Bill a wise one. It was very difficult for journalists to find out their legal position with regard to libel. The Bill attempted to draw a line between free speech and the right of a cititzen io have his character protected. The Minister was outlining the various clauses of the Bill when the 5.30 p.m. adjournment was taken. EVENING SESSION. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Iferdman proceeded with bis explanation of the Defamation Bill. Members of Parliament were protected, lie said, from defamation by utterances in the House, and matter published in tie; course of judicial proceedings was also privileged. It was provided that fair and accurate reports of Parliament, publie meetings, Court proceedings, etc., Were also privileged. It was a good defence that a matter of defamation was true. In the case of spoken words it was a good defence to prove that the words were used on an occasion and in circumstances when the person defamed was not likely to suiter injury thereby. No person would he liable to criminal proceedings in case of oral defamation. The proprietor, publisher or editor of a periodical was not criminally responsible for defamatory matter published without his knowledge and without negligence on his part. An employe, was not responsible for the sale of n book or publication containing defamatory mattc-r by bis servant, unless it was proved that defamatory matt"i' habitually appeared in such publication.

Sir .los-ph Wanl said tile Bill was vi important one. i-fTw-tin;; tho public life, the private life, anil the homes of the people. He opposed elause 2S, which protected a proprietor from criminal prosecution for defamation where th«matter complained of was inserted wit'iout his knowledge. This Bill threw the onus of proof upon the injured parti' l "!. That was not fair, The passage of the Bill would play into the haiidn of •I'ealthy men. who could afford to tabrisks. He did not think that the proprietors had applied for a eharge, no' was it nc-ie.'wiry.

prietors which vas'not extended to other individuals. The Press 'should not. 1 encouraged to hold up public men to scorn and ridicule. Mr. (McCallura said that at present there was not a single instance of hard-' ship suffered by the Press of New Zealand, and instead of giving extended privileges to the Press these should bt curtailed. Mr. Russell gave instances of attacks which could be made upon public men. It was not fair that a report should be published of infamous statements by a man of straw at a public meeting. The Minister had not shown that a change in the law was necessary. Under the law at present the first thing a man had to do who slandered another man was to prove that his action was in the public interest. Unless protected, men would fight shy of public life. Mr. Herdman, in reply, claimed that the Bill advanced public interests and was a distinct advancement on the present law. If was an advantage that people should he able to read report* of public meetings and that the Pre should lie able to, publish anything thns was in the. public interest. The Press was bound by that reservation. Re- , ports of meetings of local authorities could he published. Then why not re ports of public meetings, so long as they were fair and nceurate and in the public interest? . Misconceptions existed -e----garding clause 28. A newspaper proprietor was not criminally liable for matter published in his paper without his knowledge, but he was not relieved from civil liability. On tin' motion for the second reading a division was called for, and the motion was carried by 33 to 21. The House rose at V..30 p.m.