PARLIAMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2645, 29 October 1909, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

legislative council. AFTERNOON SITTING. [Per Press Association.! WELLINGTON, Oct. 29. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. The Aid to Public Works and Land Settlement' Bill 'was received from the House, and put through all its stages without discussion: 4 Replying to the Hon. W. E. Collins, the Attorney-General said .it was not considered necessary to go beyond the architects in connection with the ventilation and sanitary arrangements of public buildings, part of the training of architects having to do with such matters. The Hon. J. E. j enkinson moved for a return showing the names and particulars of those members of the Railway Department who have received bonuses for suggested improvements in railway work. The Attorney-General opposed the motion on the ground of time and cost The motion was negatived, and the Council rose at 4 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. COST OF LICENSING POLLS. In the House this afternoon, on Mr. Hordman’.s motion, it was decided that a return be presented showing (1) the cost of conducting the last licensing poll in Dunedin', Christchurch, Wellington, Auckland, and (2) the cost of the poll throughout the whole Dominion. The afternoon was devoted to discussion on answers to questions, and the House rose at 5 p.m. FLOUR DUTY ABOLITION BILL THROWN OUT. At the evening sitting, Mr. Hogg, in moving the second reading of his Flour Duty Abolition Bill, said that when the Bill was last .Wore the House it was nearly carried. He hoped, with the altered personnel of the house, it would be carried now. A tax on flour was an anomaly in a civilised country. The workers had a hard enough struggle to make ends meet, without having their food taxed. Duties on articles of daily consumption ought to he aliolished in the interest of the men •who were creating the wealth of the country. The flour duty went into the pockets of the “fat men,” not into the ‘State exchequer. Since the flour trust was formed it had taken from the -pockets of the people a million of money. The tax had only one result—viz., to help the flour ring. Its abolition would benefit the farmers, who felt the burden of it. No one else having risen, the question was put to the vote, and the second reading negatived by 39 votes to 21. The following is the division list: Ayes —Messrs Arnold, Buick, Clark, Colvin. Davey, Dillon, Dive, Glover, Hall, Hine, Hogan, Hogg. Laurenson, McLaren, Malcolm, Okey. Poole, Sidey. T. E. Taylor, Wilford, Wright. Noes —Messrs Anderson, Bollard, Buddo. Buxton. Carroll, T. Duncan, J. Duncan, Field, Forbes, Fowlds, Fraser, Graham, Greenslade, Guthrie, Hardy, Hardman, Herries Lang. Luke, MacDonald, It. McKenzie, T. Mackenzie, Mander, Massey, Newman, Nosworthy, Parata, Pearce, Phillips, Rhodes, Scott. Smith, Stallworthy, Sir W. J. Steward, Rangihiroa, J. C. Thomson, Sir Joseph Ward, Witty. SECOND BALLOT ABOLITION . Tho adjourned debate on tlic Legislature Amendment Bill was resumed. Air. Poole said he could not support the Bill. The second ballot was preferable. Mr. Wright supported the Bill on the ground that the Government hail no intention of amending the Second Ballot Act,, and he favored some system of proportional representation. Mr. Ell defended the Second Ballot Act from the criticisms of the suppor r ters of the Bill, which he opposed. Perfect representation could only be secured by the referendum. Mr. Forbes, -while drawing attention to the defects of the second ballot, considered Mr. Fishens Bill would only add to the confusion.-,r'The referendum ought to be granted, with the uower of initiative. He moved that the Bill be road a second time this day six months. Mr. Buxton seconded the amendment. . Mr. Laurenson- gave Mr. Fisher credit for an honest attempt to grapple with a difficult question, but considered the Bill was no better substitute for tho present Act. The Premier said lie desired a straight-out division on the Bill, because reading it six months hence would bo injurious. Mr. Fisher was •wrong in assuming that the Government supporters wished to kill the Bill. ...... • Mr. Massey, while admitting that the Bill was imperfect in detail, contended that it was sound in principle. If it succeeded in repealing the second ballot it would do good service to the country. Ho did believe in the referendum, wliicli was the sheet anchor of shufflers. Tho second ballot lent'itself to corrupt practices. The Hon. J. A. Millar said that the Second Ballot Act had not had a fair trial. The more it was understood the better it would be liked. Mr. Luke denounced the second ballot, and said that, though it had proved favorable to him, he preferred the old system. Tho second ballot opened tho way to abuses, and led to strife in family circles. Tho Hon. D. Buddo, while complimenting Mr. Fisher on his courage in bringing in the Bill, contended that it would lead to confusion and error, as the system of preferential - voting was too complex for the average voter. Mr. Wilford described the Bill as a half-baked pudding, but said it contained a plum in the middle, in the clause repealing the Second Ballot Act. Tie would support the measure, simply for the sake of that clause. Mil Arnold said that the Second Ballot Act was unsatisfactory .and expensive. . . Mr. Forbes 1 amendment was negatived on the voices. • A straight-out vote was taken on the second reading of the Bill, the result being—Ayes 27, noes 34. The Bill was rejected, and the House rose at midnight. ■