PARLIAMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 July 1923, Page 3

PARLIAMENT

GREY TELEGRAPH POSTS (Special to “Star.”) WELLINGTON, July 25 Mr J. O’Brien asked the Postmaster General whether he was aware that in the Greymouth district, the Post and Telegraph Department are taking out good silverpine telegraph poles and replacing them with sapling ironbark poles, expensively imported from Australia. Mr. Coates replied that the Government was aware of the lasting properties of silverpine poles. Amy silver pine poles removed have been removed on account of their deficiency in strength or height, rendering them unsuitable to carry the number of wires now on the poles line. The silver pine poles thus removed would again be used on minor lines. Old Parliamentarians are familiar ■with the somewhat, pathetic spectacle of a regular petitioner, who year in and year out, presents his grievance before the Select Committee and sometimes secures favourable recommendation .

This afternoon, in the House the Public Petitions Committee reported on the petition by John Scott Myers, Christchurch, relating to the wrong he claimed he suffered over IS years ago in connection with a Court case. The Leader of the Opposition, and several other Members protested against the Government ignoring the favourable recommendations of the Select Committees, but the Minister of Labour very neatly countered Mr. Wilford’s criticism by reminding him that Myers must have been petitioning during Mr Wilford’s tenure of office as Minister of Justice in the National Government. After a long discussion, the House again recommended Myers to the favourable attention of the Cabinet.

In the evening, the Rent Restriction Continuance, the Insurance Companies Deposits, the Industrial and Provident Societies, and the Noxious Weeds Amendment Bills were put through the final stages, and the Immigration Restriction Bill having been reported with amendments, the House rose at 1 a.in.

WOMEN JUSTICES

The proposal for women justices which is contained in Mr Wilford’s Justice of the Peace Amendment Bill appears to he in danger of being defeated in the Legislative Council. The principle was adopted by the House in 1922, but rejected by the Council. This session the House has passed the bill without opposition, and the Council is now debating it. When the bill was under discussion in the Council to-day, Hon O. Samuel raised a point of constitutional procedure, contending that as the elective branch of the legislature had passed the bill on two occasions, with an election intervening between the first and second occasion, the nominative chamber should allow the bill to pass. Sir F. Bell declared that, this was a wrong attitude, and said that, if the Council were to retain the respect of the public it must keep its own self-respect. The position was that with such a measure, the Council was at liberty to decide for itself. What was the Council there for? Some speakers contended that because women’s organisations had asked for the right it should be admitted as a thing desired by women. Others declared that women in general did not want the right. The debate was unfinished when the Council rose for the, day, but. the indications are that the bill will be defeated .