PARLIAMENT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 2992, 16 September 1908, Page 6

PARLIAMENT.

(By Tekgraph—Abridged from Press Association Report). LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. WELLINGTON, September 15. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 o'clock. On the motion to go into Committee on the Second Ballot Bill the Hons. Sinclair ar.d Kelly defended the Bill, and expressed their intention of supporting the measure. The Hon. 0. Samuel adversely criticised the measure, and contended that it was not advisable to change the mode of electing members to the House. He particularly objected to the proviso of clause 2, and the "gag clause." The Hon VV. C. F. Carncioss expressed his intention of opposing the "gag clause." The Hon. W. W. McArdle said he would support the Bill generally, but would oppose the proviso of clause 2. The Hon. J. B. Callan described the "gag clause" as a deliberate blow at the liberty of the Press. He hoped the clause would be rejected. The Hon. A. Baldey said he would support the Bill, but oppose the five hundred majority proviso. The Hon. J. T. Paul objected to the "gag clause," and the rive hundred majority proviso. The Attorney-General said in reply to the criticism of the Council that he was prepaied in Committee to remove the five hundred majority proviso of clause 2. He justified tne inclusion of clause 19 (the "gag clause"), whicn had the support of the majority of the members of the House, and it was considered that the clause was a reasonable one. He justified the clause, which would give each candidate a fair opportunity of obtaining the suffrages of his fellows in the interval between the first and second ballot. He proposed to submit an amendment to provide for the publication of a statement if true in sub- , stance, and if the publication thereof is for the public benefit. Clause I passed unamended, and the Council aJjourned until 7.39 p.rr. The Council resumed at 7.30 o'clock. The proviso to clause 2 was struck out. Clauses 3 to 17 were passed unamended. Consideration of clause 18 was postponed until after clause 19 had been dealt with. The Hon. J. Rigg moved an am:n?rr.?nt to strike out the first line , of the clauie. The amendment was rejected by 17 to 10.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The House met,at 2.30 o'clock. The Bill for the closer settlement of land by the establishing of land settlement associations was brought down by message from the Governor and read a first time. The Manawatu Railway Purchase Bill was committed and reported. The House resumed at 7.30 o'clock. The Public Bodies Leases Bill was read a third time and passed. The Wellington Manawatu Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. The Inspection of Machinery Amendment Bill, Declaratory Judgments Bill, and Impounding Amendments Bill, were read a third time and passed. Sir J. G. Ward moved the second reading of the Local Bodies Loans Amendment Bill. He said the Government could not go on indefinitely finding all the loan moneys required by local bodies. The Bill provided a scheme whereby local authorities instead of procuring loans .from the Government under the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1908, can raise loans from public debentures guaranteed by the Government, the aggregate amount, to be guaranteed in any one year not to exceed £500,000. In respect of every guaranteed loan the local authority must establish a sinking fund in the hands of the Public Trustee of not less than one per cent, of the loan, half of this amount being paid by the local authority, and the other half by the Government by way of subsidy.

He considered this a most beneficient scheme, and thought that under the circumstances the Government was entitled to ask the local bodies to invest their sinking fund in public securities.

The Premier, continuing, pointed out that the Government's liability for any loan would be a constantly diminishing amount. He thought the Bill would, be a prelude to wider measures of local Government in his country, and it would relieve the ever-increasing burden on the central authority. Mr W. Herries said that all sections of the House would help to pass the Bill, which the local bodies had been clamouring for. He would like to know, however, if the Government intended this measure to supersede the Local Bodies Loans Act.

Sir J. G. Ward: "No. It is in addition to that Act." Mr Herries said that he would like to know what principle the Government would follow in discriminating between the various bodies applying for guarantees as they approached the £500,000 limit. During the first year or two there was sure to be a rush and ho thought struggling local bodies should get the preference over more wealthy municipal bodies. Several members spoke in general support of the Bill. Mr A. W. Hogg expressed the hope that the Bill would not result in the practical withdrawal or even r.djction of the Government's assistance to settlers in country districts uider the Local Bodies Loans Act.

Mr T. K. Sidey congratulated the Government upon the measure which would be of great benefit to local bodies.

Mr W. T. Jennings feared that the Bill favoured chiefly the settled districts while it was the backblocks settlers that required assistance. Mr W. F. Maspey agreed that the backblocks interests must be safeguarded. While generally favouring the measure he nevertheless felt that it would chiefly help the wealthier local bodies in settled districts. It was obvious too that money was going to cost local bodies at least 4 per cent. He ventured to assert that this measure would not reduce at all the demands upon the Public Works Fund. He felt that such a reduction could only ensue from a complete reorganisation in our system of local government. He thought it very unfair to expect local bodies to place all their sinking funds in the hands of the Public Trustee whether the loans were guaranteed or not.