PARLIAMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2696, 29 December 1909, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

■WAITING FOR BUSINESS. rPicu Pnicss Association. | A WELLINGTON, Dec. 28. The Council met at 2.30 p.m., and immediately adjourned until 8.30 p.m., there being no business ready from “another place.” HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. CROWN SUITS ACT AND A COMPENSATION CASE. The House mot at 2.30 p.m. Mr. Davey, Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, reported on the petition of Bartorf ,an ex-motorman of the Wellington City Council, who received life-long injuries as the result of the collision of a car driven by him with a waggon driven by the State coal depot’s employees. This case has been frequently referred to in the House in reference to the Crown Suits Act, and its suggested amendment so as to allow individuals to bring actions against State Departments. Mr. Davey read the whole evidence of Barton nnd the representative of the South British Insurance Company, from which it appeared that Bartom had been advised by solicitors in Christchurch not to bring an action under' the Workers’' Compensation Act, but under the common law. Subsequently the South British Insurance Company gave Barton £l5O as an ex gratia payment, on his signing a document agreeing to refund the money in the event of succeeding in his claim against the Government. The Committee, after reviewing the evidence, had come to tihe_ conclusion that Barton had received life-long injuries, and that the Crown should award him £350 compensation, but that the sum of £l5O received by Barton from the South British Insurance Company should bo paid back out of this amount.

After a long discussion, the Hon. It. McKenzie said that anv future attempts to repeal or amend the Crown Suits Act would have little chance of success in the light of the facts adduced. The only.way to meet the case was to waivo tlie Act so as to allow Barton to receive the compensation to which, he was entitled. A motion that the report .he referred to the Government for favorable consideration and that me evidence I e printed was agreed to. Sir Joseph Ward said that if the insurance company concerned considered it was going to get any of tlie momiy given to Barton, who was entitled to £350 from tlie Government and also the sum he was entitled to receive from t.ho City Council under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the facts revealed an outrageous state of things. If Barton did not receive such compensation lie would ask the House to pass legislation to enable Barton to obtain it. THE FINANCIAL ADVISER’S SALARY.

On the motion to go into Committee of Supply, Mr. Massey brought up the question of tlie reinstatement of the vote of £4OO for the financial adviser : >i London, which was placed on the Supplementary Estimates and gave rise to the stonewall before Christmas. Lie contended that it was not competent to deal again during the same session with the question. A long discussion ensued on the u>oint of order raised by Mr. Massey as •<> the competence of reinstating a vote already rejected. When the House ultimately went into committee, Mr. Massey raised the niisstions (1) Whether the item under consideration, having been struck out • f the "eneral estimates, could be reinstated in tlie general estimates without these being recommitted, and (2) whether the said item comes under the scope of items that may be placed in the supplementary estimates. The chairman ruled on the first -noint that, while Mr. Massey was right in regard to recommittal, the procedure of the Premier was authorised by “May’s Parliamentary Practice,” being on an occasion for fresh expenditure. In regard to the second point, the chairman ruled that the appropriation must, !e placed on the estimates, not being a grant made by {statute. The'Speaker, on being appealed to, confirmed, the chairman’s ruling. The discussion on the vote was then resumed.

At the evening sitting, the House, in Committee of Su-"">ly, renewed discussion of the renewed vote of £4OO for the financial adviser m Uondon. The Premier said that the most juvenile members could pursue a course such as that pursued by the Leader of the Onposition. No judgment was required for it, and no ability. All that was necessary was to keep on haranguing, and that was what was being done! If members wanted to do 15 miles’ walk into the lobbies on 399 amendments he was willing to take his share. Mr. Massey repeated the offer previously made by the Opposition. He supposed they would be beaten again, but the Opposition had the country behind them.

The Premier said that he did not intend to agree with the Opposition proposals for settlement. The matter would liavo to be settled on the floor of the House.

Messrs Russel], Poole, and Clark, who voted against the item on Friday last, announced their intention to now vote for it, as they had voted originally under a misapprehension. AN ANIMATE!) DISCUSSION. '

Mr. T. E. Taylor pointed to the evils of party government, which, ho said, had led to the present position and the necessity of certain members being placed in the awkward position of reversing their votes. If he were a party leader he would do as was done in America—he would give the spoils to his party. Referring to the Opposition papers he said they misreported, they distorted, and they lied. They advocated political purity when it suited them. They were the meanest political scavengers. Incidentally he pointed to the importance of having an elective Executive which would represent the will of Parliament. •' Sir Joseph Ward said that if the leaders of the Opposition were sincere in their assertion that they were willing to meet liabilites incurred, they would not object to the vote being passed. Yet they attempted to block the recon. sideration of the item. He could only consider the Opposition as having personal grounds. . Mr. Massey: You have no right to say that. The Premier: I do.

After a desultory discussion, lasting till 11.30 p.m., Mr. Massey said that the debate was' not altogether a waste of time, as it served to' teach new members a good deal about the procedure of the House, and financial matters. The whole noint was whether it was necessary to fiave a financial _ adviser in London. The Prime Minister thought it was. He (Mr. Massey) did not see an;y necessity for it. In the case of Sir Julius Vogel, who had been given the salary for similar work, he had supported this out. of consideration

for Sir Julius Vogel, but objected to Mr. Reeves being paid for carrying out duties as financial adviser, not on personal grounds, but because Mr. Reeves held other positions. One particular reason why Mr. Reeves should not occupy the jjositon referred to was that lie- was a director of the National Bank. U -

Mr. Anderson said that he had had personal experience of Mr. Reeves as an employer, and could say that he had never been considered a financial expert. It was strange that, if, as Sir Joseph Ward said, Mr. Reeves, while High Commissioner, had a financial advisor to assist him, he should be in a position to act as financial adviser to the Government on his own account. (Left sitting.)