PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 150, 21 March 1931, Page 8

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Urgency on Finance Bill LABOUR AND COST OF LIVING Government Member Leaves His Party Having allowed the House two days upon the second reading debate of the Finance Bill, which makes provision for Public Service wage reductions and the variation of Arbitration Court awards, the Prime Minister applied pressure yesterday when he secured urgency for the debate, and so. gave , every prospect of keeping members out of their beds until an indefinite hour. The House was a little surprised when Mr. Forbes sought to have the second reading disposed of at one sitting, which is what the urgency motion meant, for it was generally believed that he would probably allow another day for members to state their views, especially as up to then there had been no indication of Labour’s determination to obstruct the measure. There was a difference of opinion over the necessity for urgency, and the Labour Party forced a division, which resulted in "the motion being carried by 50 votes to 24. Interest attached to the division list in that Mr. A. Harris, Reform member for Waitemata, and Mr. G. C. Black, United member for Motueka, as well as four Independents voted with Labour. This interest was greatly increased by the evening when it became known that Mr. Black’s vote against his party constituted the parting of the ways and that he had joined the ranks of the Independents. As if to bear out the rumours circulating in the lobbies, Mr. Black gathered his papers and crossed the aisle to take a seat on the cross benches. His defection from the United Party is the third since the Government assumed office over two years ago.

A further attempt to impress upon the House the inequity of the wage-reducing proposals of the Government was made by Mr. P. Fraser, Labour member for Wellington Central, who gave notice early in the afternoon to move what was in effect an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that it should ensure that the cost of living should come down. This and other amendments from both the Reform and Labour parties will undoubtedly result in long sittings before the Bill becomes law. Members spent the whole of yesterday discussing an amendment by Mr. W. J. Jordan, Labour member for Manukau, advocating a graduated tax on income. The speeches were not particularly bright and the arguments were not of the newest; The House was still sitting at an early hour this morning. The Prime Minister stated last evening that if the debate should end early this morning the House would adjourn until Monday afternoon, when the Committee stages of the Bill would be taken. It is then, no doubt, that the real fight will commence, and that the ingenuity of the Labour Party in carrying out its threatened obstruction will become a reality.

MORTGAGORS’ RELIEF No Exploitation MR. FORBES’S ASSURANCE The information that the Mortgagors Relief Bill would be made operative upon its passing from the day it was introduced, in order to prevent exploitation by mortgagees, was given to the House when it met yesterday by the Prime Minister, in reply to a question by Mr. W. Nash (Lab;. Hutt). Mr. Nash said he wished to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that certain mortgagees, in anticipation of legislation for relief of mortgagors, were definitely taking action to sell under their mortgages, and he asked whether immediate steps would be taken to protect mortgagors and ordinary creditors. “I "have in my possession an advertisement announcing the sale of nine properties by auction under orders of the mortgagee, and I am informed that if immediate protection is not given, many worthy farmers will be driven off their farms,” Mr. Nash added.

The Prime Minister indicated that it was the Government’s intention to make the legislation operative from the day the Bill was introduced in Parliament. Any action taken for the purpose of defeating the purpose of the Bill would be able to be reviewed by the court and dealt with accordingly. The Mortgagors Relief Bill provides for the reference to the Supreme Court by a mortgagor any proposed action by a mortgagee under his mortgage. Broadly, the Bill gives the mortgagor the right to seek a postponement of foreclosure or any other action the mortgagee may take. The measure was introduced on Wednesday. PENSIONS APPEAL Change in System ECONOMY PROPOSAL Reorganisation of the War Pensions Appeal Board in the interests of economy is being considered by the Government. according to a statement made by the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes, in replying to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. J.. G. Coates. Mr. Coates, who asked whether tbe Government proposed to alter the constitution and personnel of the board, said returned soldiers had received nothing but satisfaction from the board as now constituted. Mr. Forbes said a reorganisation of the board in the interests of economy was at present under the consideration of the Government. Mr. Coates’s representations would be considered. Mr. I). G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) : Who is going to do the job now? Mr. Forbes said the question was what economy could be effected. The proposal was one being considered along with other economy measures. Mr. Sullivan: You have already given notice to the existing members, haven’t you? Mr. Forbes: I do not know how far that has gone. Mr. Sullivan: It is a good board. [The chairman of the board is Sir Walter Stringer. Two doctors act with him in each of the four centres. It is understood that Sir Walter Stringer will relinquish the chairmanship as part of the reorganisation.) COST OF LIVING Labour and the Bill The first stage of what promises to be t long and continuous fight on the second reading of the Finance Bill, making provision for a 10 per cent, reduction in Public Service salaries and the variation of Arbitraton Court awards, was marked by the giving of notice by Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) that, prior to the Bill being committed to the Committee of the whole House and immediately after the order of the day for the committal had been read, he intended to move “That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole on the Finance Bill that it hath power to make provision in the Bill for ensuring that the cost of living, including food, clothing and rent, be lowered simultaneously with, and in proportion to the amount of reduction in the salaries of Public Service employees as specified in part one of the Bill; and simultaneously with, and in proportion to the amount of reduction in wages as ordered from time to time by the Arbitration Court under part two of the Bill.” This was almost immediately followed by an application by the Prime Minister for urgency on the second reading debate. Mr. Fraser rose to a point of order, asking whether it were competent for the Prime Minister to interrupt the debate to seek urgency. He asked whether this application should not be made only at the beginning of different stages of the Bill. Mr. Speaker allowed the motion. He said no notice was required for a motion for urgency. It was not in order to interrupt a debate, but the second reading was an ogdor of the day and the motion

for urgency was moved before the House proceeded to it. The Labour Party called for a division on the urgency motion, which was carried by 50 votes to 24. Three Independents, Messrs. J. S. Fletcher, C. A. Wil kinson and J. T. Hogan, one Reform mem ber, Mr. A. Harris, the Country Party member, Captain H. M. Rushworth, and one United member, Mr. G. C. Black, voted -with Labour. Five members who were away at the time were Messrs. W. P. Endean, A. M. Samuel, J. A. Nash, J. McCombs and R. MeKeen. BUSINESS METHODS Relation to Politics REPLY TO A MINISTER A vigorous defence of the business man in politics was made by Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmorit) on the resumption of the Finance Bill debate. He replied in strong terms to statements made the previous evening by the Minister of Educa- . tion, Hon. H. Atmore, who expressed his disapproval of the entry of business men into politics, saying that there was a clear line of demarcation between the profitmaking methods of commerce and the methods of Parliament. He also referred to differences of opinion in the Cabinet over what he termed business methods. “The Minister of Education went out of his way to attack the business community, and he said business men were not wanted in Parliament if it were to function in the interests of the people,” Mr. Wilkinson said. "That seems to be a serious reflection upon the business people especially as coming from a gentleman holding such a responsible position as a Minister of the Crown, and I think it is only right that I, as representing in a small measure that section of the community, should say a word in defence. “Business people are certainly no better than the rest of the community, but on the other hand I think , they are no worse, and it seems extraordinary that - they should be singled out for attack in this way. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister’s speech must have, been learned by heart, as it had been delivered in various parts of the country. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Ref., Riccarton) : We all know it. Quality of Ministers.

"Yes, but it has not been referred to yet,” Mr. Wi’kinson said. “The Minister said that if business men were in control of Parliament, wholesale sackings would take place, and thousands of men would be added to the dole and charitable aid sheets. I do not think that is a very fair statement to make, especially when we consider that we have business men not only in Parliament but in Cabinet itself. A statement like that seems to throw some doubt upon the quality and ability of the honourable gentleman’s fellowmembers of the Cabinet. We have one Cabinet Minister publicly stating that business men above all others are wanted in Parliament. One Cabinet Minister wants business men and the other does not want them at any price. Mr. J. Bitchener (Ref., Waitaki) : They are united. “We have business men in the Cabinet,’’ Mr. Wilkinson went on. “There is the Minister of Defence (Hon. J. G. Cobbe), the Hon. R. Masters, one of our prominent business men, the Minister of Internal Affairs (Hon. P. A. de la Perrelle), and the Postmaster-General (lion. J. B. Donald). If business men are not wanted in Parliament, surely they are not wanted in Cabinet. Mr. Kyle: What about the Minister of Health, the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy? Mr. Wilkinson: I do not know whether he is a business man. I am not going to bring him into that. (Laughter.) If ■ business men were in Parliament, does anyone think they would have started such a wild-cat and hair-brained scheme as the South Island Main Trunk railway? Is it to be thought that business men would stand for the present high duties on the people’s food or erect high tariff walls around New Zealand, and add to tlm cost of living in the wav Parliament Ims done? A Divided Cabinet. Mr. Kyle: The Chamber of Commerce has supported it. Mr. Wilkinson : Lour chamber may have, done so. but most of the chambers in New Zealand are anxious to support freer trade. The present Cabinet is a Cabinet of divided opinion. We have business men wanted and business men not wanted. The Government itself proposes to hand over the control of the greatest business in the country to a set of business men. Apparently the Government cannot control that institution, and it confesses its inability to manage it, and it proposes to hand it over tn an outside body. Then the Minister of Railways tells us that he does not believe in board control for our railway system. The Minister of Labour says that sustenance payments are to be made on February 21. but immediately the Prime Minister returns from England he tells us there will be no sustenance payments. Then a section of Cabinet has declared for the freer importation of flour and wheat. Some of the gentlemen made that a special point when they were elected to Parliament, but they have made no attemnt to do so since. Mr. Wilkinson added that business men had always taken a prominent nart in the affairs of the Dominion and of Great Britain. It came ill from a Cabinet Minister to make such an unwarranted attack upon a section of the people of

New Zealand as had been made by the Minister of Education the previous night. “Cut” Inevitable. Mr. Wilkinson said that if the Bill were defeated members would be placing themselves in an invidious position because they would be voting to retain their own salaries. The "cut” was inevitable, in his opinion, but at the same time he believed the attack upon wages of the poorly-paid servants should be modified. He had not the slightest doubt that in order to meet the deficit an Income lax Bill would be introduced if not this session then the next. He appealed to the Labour members to take a slightly broader view of the position than they were taking. T ~ \ . Mr. J. McCombs (Labour, Lyttelton) : Ditto. . « x, To champion a section of the community which was fairly well organised was not to show a very good spirit, continued Mr. Wilkinson. He had no doubt the Labour members were sincere in their views, but they should look at the situation of the whole of the people. He said that without malice he commended that suggestion to the Labour Party. MOUNTING BURDEN Unemployment Costs The steadily-mounting cost of unemployment and the swelling register ot workless men were discussed in telling fashion by Mr. F. Waite (Ref., Clutha), who warned the House against tne increasing burden upon the country. “The Prime Minister has admitted that the cost of unemployment is likely, to exceed the amount provided for it, Mr. Waite said, “and although I cannot vouch for the accuracy of my figures, 1 have heard that the country is spending £45,000 a week, or more than a year. Whatever the figures, this House is entitled to know exactly how much we are spending upon unemployment. “In three months’ time when the freezing works close down and the harvests are in, the present register of a little over 30,000 unemployed wiU probably be doubled, and we will have from 00.000 to 60,000 on the books, because many will be registering to avoid the payment of the next instalment of 7/6 unemploymeat tax. “How are we going to find the money to meet this situation? It seems to me, as a member of an unemployment committee, that if we are not careful the whole system is going to break down, and we shall have chaos. , . .. “The mere finding of work for the unemployed is insufficient. Nor is an agricultural bias sufficient. The question or farmers’ costs, not only on the farm, but the costs off the farm, which . include interest a n d all incidental costs in transport and taxation, must be dealt with and dealt with quickly.” Mr. Waite added that the drift from the country to the town had stopped to some extent, for it was realised that in the final “show-down” the farmer, although he would possibly have no money to spend, would at least retain a root over his head, and some meat and some vegetables to eat. Even if he could not pay his interests and rates he could live. It seemed that the time had arrived when there should be a revision of the system of taxation. It. had operated satisfactorily, from the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance, but now that prosperous times had passed the farmer was not in a position to carry the load. Costs had to be reduced. It was a question ot economise or repudiate. The only people who were sweating were the farmers. VARIETY OF OPINIONS Debate on Finance Bill Most of the afternoon was spent in debating the second reading .of the Finance Bill, a variety of opinions finding expression. , . Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) said that apparently Mr. Wilkinson wanted the Labour Fatty to lend itself to the utterly unjustifiable attack that was being made on a special section of the community. He strongly criticised the attitude of the Prime Minister in regard to workers’ awards, and said that Mr. Forbes had done much to undermine legislation which had been on the btatute Book for many years. The 10 per cent, “cut” was not going to assist the tanneremployer to any material extent. It would not rescue him from his difficulties. He asked the Government to stop fooling the farmers.” The only way to assist the man on the land was to increase the price of the goods he sold find reduce the interest charges he had to meet. The Bill under consideration would not save the farmers. zr , . . Mr. M. J. Savage (Lab., Auckland West) said that New Zealand would have to pay its own debts and the only way to meet the country’s obligations was by means of a graded system of payment by the people in accordance with their ability to pay. Referring to unemployment relief, Mr. Savage said that men were engaged for two or three days picKing up leaves or digging on a road whicn disappeared with the first shower of ram. Economy was popular, but that was anything but economy. The. men would be better employed breaking in land. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Reform, Patea) said that the Labour Party was posing as the friend of the farmer. Prosperity meant high wages, but high wages did not necessarily mean prosperity. rie suggested that men might he employeu on improving the level crossings. At the present time many works of an unproductive nature were being . undertaken. Mr. Dickie said he believed there were far too many S'--’- departments. New Zealand spent far too much money in sending people round the world. He did not think that in the circumstances the expenditure incurred by sending representatives to Geneva was justified, l.be High Commissioner’s office was due tor an overhaul: it sheltered too many "leadswingers.” New Zealand would not weather the storm unless everybody made sacrifices. Every effort should be made to impose a minimum of hardship. He suggested that men with families should be exempt from severe taxation. BENEFIT TO COUNTRY Policy Defended LABOUR MINISTER SPEAKS “If it can be shown to me by any member of this House that what I am doing to-day is going to inflict unnecessary hardship upon the workers of this country, I will have no hesitation in walking away from this side of the House,” declared the Minister of Labour. Hon. S. G. Smith, in the evening, in defending the Government’s wage-reducing policy as one of necessity. The Minister said it was harder tor him to have to agree to the Government’s proposals than for any man on that, side of the House, ns he had been a member of the Public Service for 20 years and be had been among the lower-paid railway workers, so that he knew the conditions under which those men worked. However, he did agree with them because he felt they would result in the workers benefiting in the long run. Power of the Court. Dealing with the proposal to give the Arbitration Court the power to vary awards, Mr. Smith said the Act would merely give the. court power to consider the position of the Dominion insofar ns its other duties and powers were concerned. If the court thought fit it would be able to issue a general order reducing wages and salaries by an amount it thought equitable. The Bill also reserved the right for a union to be exempted from tlie general order, and every union would have the fight to go to the court aud state its case for exclusion from the wage reductions. Although reference was made in the Bill to apprentices, no wage reductions would be brought about us far as they were con cerncd. The only reason for mention ing apprentices in the Bill was that the court would have the right of reviewing this class of wages in the future if cir cumstances warranted that action. It had been said that the Bill was a breach of contract and a breach of faith.

Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) : Hear, hear. The Minister said his interjector would not speak in that strain when he had finished. In 1918 Sir. Fraser had supported exactly similar legislation. He supported the very principle contained in the present Bill. Under the War Legislation Act of 1918 power was given to the court to review awards and increase or decrease wages as it thought fit. The leader of the Labour Party, Mr. 11. E. Holland, said that' legislation was for the increasing of wages. The Minister agreed. He said it was rood legislation and the court exercised its right, but at that, time, when there was the question of increasing wages, nothing was heard of repudiation ot agreements. It was highly important to note that the Australian Arbitration Court could vary awards without special, legislation in aecordance with the rise and fall in the cost of living. In addition it was the Labour Governments that had given the court this general power. The present Bill would give the New Zealand court the power that had always been vested in the Australian court. , Work for Unemployed. Many suggestions had been made during the course of the debate upon the question of unemployment, but it the Bill was not passed many hundreds would join the ranks of the unemployed. Reference hud also been made to the class of work being performed by the unemployed in various parts of New Zealand, but that did not reflect upon the Unemployment Board. Under the No. o scheme, under which these men were working, the Unemployment Board found the money and the local bodies the work. If the local bodies could not find anything better than the picking of weeds for the unemployed, it was to be regretted. The Minister concluded with an assertion that the steps being taken by the Government would be to the benefit of the country in the long run. If he could be shown that any other method could he adopted to meet the position he would be willing to cross the floor of the House. He followed his chief because he believed he was courageous and honest. The Minister said he had studied the Prime Minister’s proposals, and he stood by him because he believed they had nothing to fear from the outcome. He was not afraid to go to the country or to do his duty, unpleasant though it was. Public Works Staff. Blame for the overstaffing of the Public Works Department was placed at the door of the Labour Party by Mr. K. S. Williams, Minister of Public Works in the Reform Government. “I think the department is overstaffed, said Mr. Williams, “but it has been overstaffed as a result of the representations of the Labour Party to fill it up with all and sundry. Members of the old contingent have practically lost their identity, and have become mixed up with relief workers. I think that was a greatmistake. The relief workers should have been kept separate. The affect of the Government’s policy has been to reduce the wages of all.” A suggestion that in order to obtain further revenue the Excise and Customs duty on beer, wines and spirits should be increased was made by Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier). Mr. Barnard said that in 1929 the tax on liquor yielded £1,763,460. Had New Zealand applied the British scale of taxation the Government would have raised £3,389,956. Had the Australian scale bee nlied the total would have been £2.992,031. Mr. Barnard said he did not advance the suggestion as a mere anti-linuor argument. ' He was firmly of opinion that the tax on liquor could be increased without imposing a hardship on the public. As an alternative to the wage “cut Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Ind., Grey Lynn) suggested that the establishment of oil refineries in New Zealand would save the country two millions every year. “This country.” he declared, “is being crucified on the derricks of the American and international oil trusts. We arc being overcharged at the rate of £2.000,000 yearly, and I am going to submit it. is possible to establish here an oil-cracking plant at a cost under £300,000. We could produce all the petrol this country needs. The crude oil could be imported. The factory would employ at least 200 workers. The question is,: Has the Government the initiative and the courage to attack the oil monopoly?” GREATEST OF ALL Present-day Emergency COUNCIL’S DEBATE Resuming the debate on the Address-in-,Reply in the Legislative Council yesterday, Hon. W. Earnshaw said that in a long career he had passed through many periods of national emergency, and to-day lie thought one of the greatest of all difficult periods had to be overcome. He believed every section of the community had to sink much that they could ordinarily demand as their right in order to meet the common emergency. He sympathised with the Government, for he recognised the exceeding difficulty Mr. Forbes had to overcome. The speaker said he had listened carefully to Sir Francis Bell’s speech in tlie Council a few days ago, and had given it careful thought. He was absolutely convinced that Sir Francis’s arguments were unanswerable, particularly in regard to the Civil Service. Mr. Earnshaw spoke at length on the unemployment question, and. on the proposed wages reduction, describing the latter as an iniquitous and inequitable measure. He criticised the working of the Unemployment Board and the method of financing it. PROFESSOR’S ARTICLE Hon. W. Earnshaw’s “Contempt” “I pass the professor’s words with the derision and contempt they deserve,” said the Hon. W. Earnshaw in the Legislative Council yesterday, referring to an extract from a recent article by Professor B. E. Murphy. Mr. Earnshaw said ever .since the professor had described Disraeli as a mountebank and a charlatan, he had never taken great notice of his views, but as far as the particular article was concerned — well, he had not thought a professor of world economics would be “such a born ass as to make such observations.” NO TAX ON SUGAR Amusements Before Necessities HON. G. WITTY’S SPEECH “To-day a man is lucky to be in the New Zealand Government service. My sympathies are with the man who is without work,” said the Hon. G. Witty, who had some criticism to make of Sir Francis Bell's speech, made in the Council a few days ago, and who offered some suggestions for securing increased revenue and making economies. “If we adopted Sir Francis Bell’s plan,’’ he said, “there would still he inequity. I was surprised Io hear Sir Francis Bell say that be would put a tax on sugar, one of the necessities of life. Does he realise that 2d. a lb. extra would double the price of sugar to-day? If 1 could I would double the tax on picturcs and other amusements. Sir Francis would have everyone with him if he advocated Hint, but I think everyone will be against him in his taxing the necessities of life." Modern Picture Entertainments. To-day, Mr. Witty said, boys and girls were spending five or six shillings a week on pictures, nnd yet were pleading poverty. lie knew personally of one case where n hoy earning 15/- a week spent 5/of it in visiting picture houses. “And what are they, in any case?” he asked. “Half of them are unseemly tilings; they are not educational.” And yet Sir Francis Bell would rather leave this and tax

neee-ssitics. There was too much amusement these days. One had only to look at the newspaper advertisements. “To-day, too, the Government allows a great deal of money to go out of the country to Australia for sweeps. Why not legalise them here? It would save a lot of money going out of the country,” Mr. Wittv said. Another thing that should be done, in his opinion, was the legalising of bookmakers.. Why Not a Distillery? Another question that mystified the speaker was why so much barley was grown by farmers and yet no whisky was manufactured in the country. If there was a proper distillery the Government would not only still secure revenue, but would provide the farmers another incentive to grow more and better crops, while no more harm would he done the country than was the case now. The manufacture of paper pulp was also a question to which attention could well be directed, and it was a disgrace that New Zealand should have to send to America for a timber suitable for butter boxes. Most of the vehicles, except chassis, that were bought in America, could be made in New Zealand, Mr. Witty continued. Tlie bodies made here were the equal in appearance and durability of any that wen* imported. Dealing with local government. Mr. Witty said that rates were rapidly becoming worse than taxes. There was too much local government, and if a great many of the local bodies were to amalgamate lhe same work would be done at a much less cost. GALLERY GLEANINGS What Members Say IDEAS, VIEWS, AND QUIPS “Ever since the present Government camo into power the public finances have been going back.”—Mr. J. A. Nash (Ref., Palmerston). ♦ ♦ ♦ “Seeing that the Government has gone mad on economising, why does it not abolish that perfectly useless department —the Department of Industries and Commerce?” —Mr. R. MeKeen (Labour, Wellington South). * * * “The Labour members go round saying things that sound like ‘bogey, bogey’.”— Mr. F. Waite (Ref., Clutha). “The Government allows tlie Public Works Department to spend money like a prodigal son sowing his wild oats.” —■ Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Ind., Grey Lynn). « ♦ • ♦ “The only Minister in the history of the British Empire who insisted upon laying a second foundation stone ■ of a school building.’’—Mr. F. Waite (Ref., Clutha), referring to the Hon. H. Atmore, Minister of Education. “I advise the Minister of Education —and I know he doesn’t mind taking advice from me —to stick to the poets in his usual jocular manner and leave political economy alone.” —Mr. F. Waite (Ref., Clutha), referring to-a speech delivered by the Hon. H. Atmore, Minister of Education. A New Black Rod The Gentleman Usher of lhe Black Rod, that dignified and picturesque personality who is an essential part of the ceremonious opening of New Zealand Parliament, is to have a new Black Rod. Throughout the years since the New Zealand Parliamentary system was modelled upon the procedure of the British House of Commons, he has been using a long tapered wooden staff, like an at- . tentuated billiard cue —“a wretched thing,” one member of the Legislative Council called it. But his Excellency the Governor-Gen-eral, Lord Bledisloe, observing the inadequacy of the instrument to fit the dignified position, has presented the New Zealand Parliament with a handsome Black Rod. modelled in ebony, silvermounted, and embellished on top by a lion rampant—an exact replica of the Black Rod used in the British Parliament. , As the Black Rod is used only at the opening of Parliament, when The Gentleman Usher summons the members of the House of Representatives to meet the Governor-General and hear the Speech from the Throne, it will not often be seen. But members of the Upper House are gratified by the friendly gesture ot Lord Bledisloe and pleased to see the last of what was in some quarters referred to as the “billiard cue.” The new Black Rod, which reached Wellington on Thursdnj morning on the Rangitane, will shortly be formally handed over by his Excellency to the Legislative Council. , , „r. The Mace, which is the symbol of Parliament’s authority in the House of Representatives, nnd which is an exact replica of the Macc used in the British House of Commons, was presented to the New Zealand Parliament many years ago by the late Sir Joseph Ward and his colleagues. . Much Public Interest The general public has not shown such interest for a long time as has been aroused in the doings of Parliament this session. The nature of the session has been enough to attract many people to the House each day and evening, and added to this is the fact that the Government is placing before the country legislation of vital interest to all sections of the'community. Every evening since the session opened the galleries have been crowded, and the women’s galleries in particular have had no empty seats at least until the supper adjournment at 9.30. Queues of women await the opening of the doors each evening, and many are turned away. Lady Bledisloe has visited the House twice, and she has shown an obvious interest in the business. It is also noteworthy that the Legislative Councillors nailery is much used these days, for the Upper House is showing no little interest in the trend of events. So far, however, those in the galleries have not been treated to anything of great moment, but it is certain that when the I’lnnnce Bill, now before the House, reaches the committee stages, the listeners will be rewarded with the highlights of the session. Awards Not Contracts Considerable interest was shown in the House last evening in a statement by the Minister of Labour, Hon. S. G. Smith, that an Arbitration Court award was not a contract between employer ami employee. IBs assertion gained added interest from tlie fact that since the int roduction of the Finn nee Bill, in which provision is made to empower the court to review awards, the Government has been charged by the Labour speakers with being a party to a breach of faith and of contract Tlie Minister said lie had it on tlie hHiest authority in New Zealand that an” award was not a contract between employer and employee. The freedom to contract remained entirely in the hands of the employer and the worker even after the award had been made. All that happened was that the State empowered tlie court to step in between employers ami workers and fix minimum wage rates. This was the contract that tlie” Labour members spoke about. Bui there was nothing to prevent an employee from working at a rate l above tlie" minimum. Most of the conditions, in. awards were fixed in normal limes, and it was surely equitable that when economic conditions became abnormal tlie court should be empowered to make arrangements to meet them.