PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 264, 3 August 1929, Page 12

PARLIAMENT

A BRIEF SITTING AMENDED STANDING ORDERS Tho House of Representatives yesterday sat only from 2.80 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., when the adjournment was taken until 2.30 p-m. on Tuesday. Some time was devoted to the setting up of the Select Committees for the session, after which consideration was given to the proposed alterations of the Standing Orders, as recommended by the special Select Committee. Some seventy-one Items were approved. The remaining 898 orders will be considered on Tuesday afternoon. The altered hours of sitting—2.3o p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and 10.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on Fridays—were agreed to. EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT OF LAW PRIVATE BILL INTRODUCED "Do not the rank and file members of the United Party know what the Government is doing, or is this sheer fooling?” asked Mr. E. J. Howard, Labour member for Christchurch South, in the House of Representatives on Thursday, during a discussion that arose on the introduction of the Education Amendment Bill by Mr. J. S. Fletcher, United member for Grey Lynn. Mr. Howard’s point was that such a Bill should be introduced by the Minister of Education in view of the general agreement that the whole Education Act should be overhauled and consolidated. . , . Mr. Fletcher’s Bill aims simply to repeal sub-section 2 of section 15 of the Education Amendment Act, 1919, which reads: "No regulation under this section shall be invalid because it deals with any matter provided for in, the previous Act or is contrary to the provisions of that Act.”' 1 Mr. Fletcher contended that if the rights of Parliament could be overridden in that way, it was better that those rights should cease. "This seems to be practically a reproduction of a Bill I introduced last year, commented Mr. H. E. Holland Leader of the Labour Party. “I am glad to see a member of the United Party following the Labour Party in this respect, and 1 can promise him our full support. I only hope he has the support of his party too.” , Mr. A. M. Samuel (Reform member for Thames) : Wasn’t this by arrangement? , , . Mr. Holland said it had always been incomprehensible to / him that the Government of the day should have power to make regulations over-riding statute law. . . , The Education Act was in a hopeless muddle, and no lawyer could interpret some parts of it, said Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs), late Minister of Education. The regulation it was proposed to repeal had never' been abused, either by the National Government, which introduced it, or by the Reform Government. It was simply brought in as a matter of expediency to “put some sense into the Act so that we could make some use of it.” It had been intended to recast the whole Education Act, but that had not so far been done, and possibly the Reform Party should bear some blame for that.

While agreeing with the purnort of the Bill, Mr. P. Fraser, Labour member for Wellington Central, thought it savoured of trifling with the matter to seek to repeal the section by means of a private member’s Bill. Mr. Fletcher should be congratulated on his initiative, but some lack of cohesion in the party was evident when an important principle was brought forward in a private member’s Bill instead of by the Government after consideration by Cabinet. The matter of recasting and consolidating the Education Act had not been overlooked by the Government, said the Minister of Education (Hon. H. Atmore). He had had numerous conferences with his officers on the question, but it would take some time to bring about (he changes. It would not be possible to consolidate the Act this session, but the responsibility was not being shirked. The United Party was then twitted by Mr. Howard with having a rank and tile that did not know the intentions of the Government. That was all the more remarkable, seeing that rank and tile members were so few in the Government ranks. He asked whether the rank and file were using the Bill for advertising purposes to indicate that the Government would take up the matter later. In any case, the procedure followed was not cricket Replying, Mr. Fletcher said no one would doubt that the amendment sought had been asked for by the people in order that government by regulation should cease. The Bill was read a first time and ordered to be printed. A BREWERY LICENSE QUESTION IN THE HOUSE. The suggestion that the establishment of a brewery at Otahuhu would facilitate the distribution of liquor in the “dry” King Country area was made in the House of Representatives when Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) addressed a series of questions on the subject to the Minister of Customs (Hon. W. B. Taverner). The questions were: (1) Whether a license had been granted a brewery erected on the Main South Road, Auckland; (2) if so, was the Minister aware that the site was on the main highway to the Waikato and King Country; (3) if a brewery was established on this highway would it not be an easy matter for travellers to purchase liquor in small quantities and distribute it in the King Country to the serious detriment of the Native population? The Minister replied that approval had been given to the granting of a license for a brewery on the Main South Road, Otahuhu. Under the license that would be issued beer could not be sold except in quantities of two gallons or over. There appeared to be loss likelihood of beer for distribution In the King Country being purchased from such a brewery than from breweries and wholesale licensees in Auckland, Hamilton, and other large centres en route. In any case it was a breach of the law to attemnt to dispose of liquor in the King Country. SELECT COMMITTEES The House of Representatves spent some time yesterday appointing the Select Committees for the session. The personnel already announced was agreed to, with the addition of the names of Messrs. McDougall, Broadfoot, Hamillou. ;md Savage to the Lands Cominitloe. and those of Messrs. Jenkins and Lysnar to the Public Accounts Committee. LOCAL BILLS The Manawatu-Oroua River Board Amendment Bill and the Wellington Citv Empowering nnd Amendment Bill were read a first time in the House of Representatives yesterday and referred *o the Local Bills OofiMnittMu

THE WHEAT INDUSTRY PROPOSED INQUIRY ORDER OF REFERENCE Appointment of the Select Committee to inquire into matters concerning the wheat industry was given notice by the Minister of Lands (Hon. G. W. Forbes) in the House of Representatives yesterday. It is proposed that the Committee consist of Messrs. D. Jones (Mid-Canter-bury), J. Bitchener (Waitaki), F. Waite (Clutha), Rev. C. L. Carr (Timaru), Messrs. J. McCombs (Lyttelton), J. A. Macpherson (Oamaru), C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont), H. R. Jenkins (Parnell), the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Hon. J. G. Cobbe), and the Minister of Lands (Hon. G. W. Forbes). The committee is charged to report its opinion to the House as to the following questions:— (1 What are the advantages from. a national standpoint of the policy of the Dominion self-supporting as far as ica wheat requirements are concerned. (2) Whether the wheat-growers of the Dominion require protection or State assistance to enable them to market their product, in competition with the importations from other countries. (3) What form of assistance, if any, would “f 6 ®* ject without unduly adding to> thes cost of wheat, flour, bread, fowl wheat, an wheat offals to the users; (4) Whether protection, « W* " cured for the flourmilling Industry, Whether the costs of baking ana distribution of bread to consumers are reasonable or otherwise. STANDING ORDERS PROPOSED ALTERATIONS DAYLIGHT SITTINGS APPROVED The House of Representative yestei> dav gave Committee consideration to the nropS alterations to the Standing Orders. Some seventy-one items were approved, including the clauses, relative the new “daylight’ sitting hours. In the course of debate on various items, the Leader of the .9 P ,? 0S / t Jh» (Right Hon. J. G. Coates) said that the Standing Orders as drafted were able and would not allow of the efficient Sd’efficacious dispatch of businessu He was not in favour of limiting Addr ®^' l ’ l Reply speeches to half an hour, contend ing P fhat an hour was not unreasonable, providing there was no extension of time, to which he was opposed. The Leader of the Labour Party f’ H E. Holland) said he failed, to understand Mr. Coates’s attitude with regard to the Standing Orders, as he had attended only half the meetings of the Committee. The House should not sit all night long as it had done on occasions, as members became physically fatigued and went to sleep. Members should stand solidly for the change proposed. He considered that the length of Address-in-Reply debate speeches should be curtailed, so that the debate itself could be shortened. A long discussion took place on the proposal to prohibit the circulation of newspapers in the Chamber while the Honse was sitting. The Prime Minister said that as there appeared to be a good deal of opposition to the proposal he had come to the conclusion that it conld be allowed to drop. The remaining items will come up for consideration on Tuesday. INCREASER PRIMAGE DUTY POSITION OF LOCAL BODY CONTRACTORS It has not taken members long to come forward with questions bearing on the Budget proposals of the Minister of Finance (Right Hon. Sir Joseph Ward). In the House of Representatives yesterday Mr. J. Bitchener (Waitaki) gave notice to ask the Minister, if he would make provision for exemption from the extra primage duty proposed of all goods landing for local body contractors who had entered into contracts on the basis of the one per cent, primage duty. Mr. Bitchener emphasised that many contractors had lately entered into contracts on the basis of then existing costs, and now might be seriously embarrassed financially. Indirect reference to the taxation proposals was made by Mr. W. E. Barnard (Napier), who gave notice to ask the Minister whether the provisions of section 51 of the Land and Income Tax Act. 1923. providing for the imposition of 50 per cent additional land tax upon unimproved land, as defined in the same section, had been consistently enforced, or whether the section had been allowed to become entirely inoperative. The replies of the Minister of Finance ■will be circulated in due course. POLICE OFFENCES AMENDMENT BILL The Police Offences Amendment Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on Thursday by Mr. G. C. Black (Motueka) and read a first time. In reply to a question by Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central), Mr. Black said that the intention of the Bill was to give the House an opportunity to discuss the Police Offences Act as amended by the 1926 Act. The Bill related to the clauses in the Act providiing for the arrest without warrant of any person having insufficient lawful means of support, and the provision that a person without such means be deemed an idle nnd disorderly person liable to three months’ imprisonment, without consideration to money or property possessed by that person unless it were proved that he had come by it lawfully. The Bill brought before the House two important considerations, firstly, regarding the burden of proof and, secondly, regarding arrest by warrant. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South): I thought that was the Minister’s Bill? The second reading was fixed for August 21. Mr. D. McDougall (Mntaura) states that in his speech in the House of Representatives on Thursday night he made use of the expression “giddy girl,” and not “giddy devil,” as reported.