AN OBSERVER IN PARLIAMENT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19985, 21 July 1930, Page 10

AN OBSERVER IN PARLIAMENT.

WORK OF SESSION BEGUN. (SMCUIAV WfUTTKW FOB THE PBZ88.) [By Pomticus.] WELLINGTON, July 19. One fact must be recorded to tlie credit of the House of Representatives. It finished the Address-in-Reply debate in five sitting days. Rarely, in recent years, has this achievement been equalled in an ordinary session. It may be objected that the House could have ended the debate in three days, or two, and have left nothing unsaid that ought to have been said; but the House seldom does what it might well do. Also it may be added that the now Standing Orders, allowing members only tialf-an hour for tbeir speeches, are partly re sponsible for the saving of time. Never theless the saving, however effected, is something to be thankful for, especially a» members showed little disposition in the debate to attack the real problems of tho session.

A Tame Conclusion. The closing stages of the debate were ilevoid of interest. The Prime .Minister reproached the Leader of the Opposition for tabling a want-of-confidence amendment when unity was needed, but omjudged that this was merely a debating thrust. When no unity overtures had come from the Government side, that side could scarcely resent an amend ment intended to clarify the position. For t the rest, Mr Forbes was mainly concerned to defend himsell against the charges of pessimism and gloom-spread ing which were based upon his three million revenue shortage statement. He made the justifiable claim that it was essential that the people should be acquainted with the true position, but he did not explain too clearly how the true position was equally revealed in his "All's well" declaration made a little while earlier. He certainly explained that the first was a statement of the past year's accounts, and the second an estimate of the current year's reve nue; but he did not show why the note of confidence was strong in the one, and the cry for retrenchment, so decided in the other.

No Surprises In the Vote. The vote on the amendment produced do surprises. Labour had let it be un derstood that it would not vote with Mr Coateß. Labour's reasons for this decision were not so easily understand able, but no one worried much aboul that. How shy of the subject tbe Party is, was to be seen when the Leader (Mr Holland) spoke after the amend ment had been defoated. He took up part of his timo in lamenting the failure of the other Parties to accept his suggestion to shorten the debate, and after that bo had little to say that wa? not an echo of Mr Savage's speech when the debate opened. Mr Holland, in fact, seems to find difficulty in putting his old fire into the attack. Fighting with blank cartridge does not please him. The Independents showed their usual independence by following Mr Forbes into the lobby. So far they are only firing threats at the Government. Mr Lysnar's vote was cast against the amendment because he thought this not the proper time to submit it. Ho thought Mr Forbes should have a chance at the start.

A Big BUI Quickly. The real surprise of the day came when the Government produced the Unemployment Bill as soon as the Ad-dress-in-Reply was adopted. A House that had been rather bored, at once became alort and interested, and the new Minister for Labour (the Hon. S. G. Bm' th) was at once plied with ques tions. As a now Minister, Mr Smith came through the ordeal remarkably well. He took nott of the questions, and replied to them in order. His brief explanation of the Bill was clear, and sufficient for that stage of the proceed ings. His statement that funds were not to be provided from land and income taxation and levies on rates brought looks of surprise and almost consternation to the faces of Labour members. Interjections and questions came thicker from the cross-benches. 4 'lf you will allow me," said Mr Smith, "I will reply to the questions I have noted, lest I shonld forget thera." So the House hoard the explanation, and adjourned to argue it out in the lobby. When the Minister came to move the second reading of the Unemployment Bill he displayed complete mastery of its provisions. Some were doubtful how an untried Minister would shape in submitting so important a measure. Mr Smith did well, and the Leader of the Opposition frankly complimented him on his success.

Principles of Sustenance. Mr Coates did not adopt a hostile attitude to the Unemployment Bill. It was not expected that he would, as he himself inaugurated the procedure in the National Industrial Conference which led ultimately to the report of the Unemployment Committee and the Bill. But he was apprehensive of danger in the sustenance provision. He was anxious, also, concerning the cost of the proposals, and particularly the cost of administration, which he anticipated would be heavy. Labour's attitude, as stated by Mr Holland, was much moro critical, though on directly opposite lines. Indeed, the only thing he seemed to see good in the Bill was that it was an Unemployment Bill. He demanded a higher Government subsidy, objected to the flat rate contribution and to the exclusion of women from tho scope of the measure, and asked for graduated taxation to supply the funds. This was in accord with Labour's policy—to demand always something more; but Mr Holland went on to claim that the Bill "did >not make any provision for creating work, but simply gave greater facilities for those out of employment to get in touch with those seeking labour." One doubted, then, if Mr Holland had read carefully the Committee's report or heard the Mijister's explanation of the Bill, for in both the main claim for the proposals was that they would organise work and .reate new opportunities for emn'iyment. Other Labour members adopted much the same tone as their leader —they all wanted mors, though Mr Jordan did make some expression of gratitude-for what was offered. The second reading debate will be continued on Tuesday and may extend to Wednesday. After that the Bill will go to a Select Committee, and when it comes back to the House the real tussle on the Committee stages will begin. At present the prospects seem to be that it will not be substantially amended. Labour will vote with the Government to retain the sustenance principle, and Reform will vote with the Government to prevent Labour increasing the cost or removing what safeguards the Bill contains.

No Word of a Bill. Though the House spent a day and a night in discussing the education report, the debate produced neither statement of the Government's intentions nor any elucidation of the

shadowy patches in the report. Mr B. A. Wright, ex-Minister for Education, challenged the Go -ernment with the assertion that the proposals would involve an increase of £500,000 in education expenditure. Some supporters of the report denied this, but they did not offer alternative estimates. If Mr Wright is correct in his estimate—and, as many of the changes s< m to have been officially inspired, the ex-Minister probably had similar proposals, berore him when he was in office—it is easy to understand why Mr Atmore did not proclaim that the whole report would be put into operation immediately. His Cabinet chief had probably warned him to skate lightly over that thin ice. Another singular feature of the debate was that, while most members praised unified control, noile appeared to know or care what were to be the new and responsible duties to be assigned to the unified Boards. Possibly they had not read the report so thoroughly as to grasp the full meaning of the schedule of functions which the Committee recommended should be undertaken by the National Department. Possibly the debate followed so quickly on the presentation of the report that the telegrams of protest had not arrived from local educational bodies. With his Sword Drawn. The absence or presence of a private member may often be unnoticed in the House, except when division lists are studied, but no division list was needed to mark the return of Mr David Jones, He entered the Address-in-lteply debate in its closing stages and gave it new life, incidentally rousing the Labour benches to interject and reply. On this occasion he drew the fire of Mr P. Fraser, who compared Mr Jones's references to American tariff policy to Tom Thumb shaking his fist at Goliath. "He poses as an authority on finance and economics," said Mr Fraser, "but he has never made a study of finance and never read an economic treatise. If he had spoken of meat I would have been prepared to listen to him." "He knows nothing about that," said Mr Lysnar. As Mr Fraser had the last word, the Honours for the time being were his. But Mr Jones smiled happily. He never minds hard knocks, but waits till he has the opportunity to hit back harder still. And this hard hitting, if there is not too much of it, brightens dull days.