PARLIAMENT’S BRIEF SITTING

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 December 1928, Page 5

PARLIAMENT’S BRIEF SITTING

CURTAILING THE DEBATE

SIR J. WARD’S RIDDLE

(Special to "Star.")

WELLINGTON, Dec. 5.

Parliament was officially opened today, with the usual ceremony and formula, and the first business sitting of the House was concluded in the space of less than a quarter of an hour. The most interesting incident in the House was the reference by Sir J. Ward to the possibility of further session of the Parliament in February next. Jn moving the adjournment until tomorrow afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Coates) said that formal business could then be taken, followed by the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Address-in-Reply, he suggested that if it could be arranged with the Whips of the various parties, the debate should be concluded say on Friday night or Saturday morning. If the leaders of the parties were agreeable to curtail the number of speakers, as far as possible, the best interests of the House and country might be served. The leader of the Opposition (Sir J. Ward) said that Mr. Coates’s suggestion met with his personal approval. If it could be arranged for an expression of opinion to be given by one speaker on behalf of each of the three parties, all that was necessary for this session of Parliament would be accomplished. Unless such arrangement could be made with the concurrence of the House to-morrow afternoon, it was only right for him to inform the House that in his opinion, it would be necessary to have a meeting of Parliament not later than February. He hoped it would be possible for such an arrangement to be made because he had formed the opinion on thinking the matter over that it would be absolutely necessary for the House to meet in the month of February, or March at the latest. He added that he would give his reasons on the Address-in-Reply debate. Notice of the Address-in-Reply motion was given by Mr. Ansell, and Sir J. Ward immediately gave notice to move a formal no confidence amendment. In reply to a question in regard to the unemployment, asked by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Coates said that the number of unemployed registered in the Dominion was 3800 in June last and 3360 in October, and now it was 1800. Mr. McCombs was sworn in by affirmation.

The House adjourned at 3 p.m. until 2.30 to-morrow.

COAST UNEMPLOYMENT.

WELLINGTON, December 5.

The possibility of providing work on railways for unemployed miners on the West Coast, was the subject of a question asked of the Minister of Public Works in the House, to-day, by Mr. H. E. Holland. The Minister (Mr.' K. S. Williams) said he would make inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Holland suggested that immediate action fee taken.

Mr.- O’Brien asked the Minister if he would raise the wages paid to relief workers from 9s per day for single men and 12s per day for married men, to the standard wage paid in the dis-trict-in which work is carried out. In Westland, he said, good workers had made only 4s 6d to 7s 6d per day, and the relief rate of Is per cubic yard was inadequate for the best men to make a living wage. The returns showed that returned soldiers on relief works were practically starving. The Speaker: “I am afraid there is a good deal of argument in the question.” (Laughter).

POSSIBILITIES REVIEWED.

WHAT SIR JOSEPH MEANT.

(Special to “Star.”)

WELLINGTON, December 5. The political situation which is already tangled enough, has become more confused by certain enigmatical remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Sir J. Ward) in the House today when expressing concurrence with the suggestion made by the Prime Minister that the debate on the Address-in-Reply, which opens to-morrow afternoon, should be curtailed. Sir Joseph’s suggestion that it might be necessary for Parliament to meet again in February or March, unless an agreement is reached to keep down the number of speakers is puzzling members, who are not in the know. Even some of the members of the United Party seemed to have been taken by surprise. The session having been opened with usual formalities, and the House having assembled for business, it was at once apparent that the Labour Party meant business, one way or another, no matter who might be embarassed by their questions. Messrs Sullivan, H. E- Holland, and O’Brien lost no time in asking questions concerning unemployment, and even though the session is destined to end in the course of a few days, and the Ministry seems doomed," Mr Langstone could not refrain from asking when a new Post Office is to be provided at TaumarunuiIf anything, the nature of the Labour Party’s questions betokened that unemployment ■would be made one of-its main subjects of debate. Within a few minutes of the commencement of business, Sir Joseph Ward gave notice of his amendment to the Address-in-Reply, and what is somewhat unusual for the Leader of the Opposition on the day Parliament opens he stated its full terms : “In conclusion, we deem it our duty to represent to Your Excellency that Your Excellency’s advisers do not possess the confidence of this House.”

It may, or may- not be significant, that Mr Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, made no comment on either the Prime Minister’s or Sir J. Ward’s remarks., All he did was smile, but the smile may have been due to the fact that by a slip of the tongue Sir J. Ward referred to him as “Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.” There is much speculation in the lobbies as to the meaning of Sir J. Ward’s reference to Parliament meeting again in February or March. Members are asking whether Sir J. Ward thinks the Address-in-Reply debate will be so prolonged as to necessitate an adjournment of the session until after the New Year, or that an early

session may be necessary next year, for the purpose of passing

IMPORTANT LEGISLATION,

which the. administration he is expected to form shortly, will desire to get through. Some think that unless Sir J. Ward had in mind the condition of the King’s health and the consequent need for speeding up the session, he may be anxious to obtain such an agreement for the curtailment of the debate as will free him from being placed in an embarrassing position by the exertion of pressure from the Labour Party for concessions, in. return for support which Labour may accord him in turning the Reform Government out of office.

So far as possible legislation is concerned, some members do not think Sir J. Ward will attempt the passage of a Preferential Voting Bill, because the principles of such measure, unless applied solely to licensing, would be repugnant to the Labour Party which favours proportional representation. It is suggested that the Labour Party would “stonewall” the Preferential Voting Bill if its provisions were to operate in Parliamentary elections. Some Reform members think Sir J. Ward’s remarks may simply provoke a long debate. They do not see how it would be possible to confine the discussion to one speech from each party. For one thing there will be speeches of the mover and seconder of the Address-in-Reply, and the Prime Minister must be expected to take part ,and it is understood furthermore that the Government intends to place on record statements showing the position of each Department of the State- In these circumstances, some doubt is expressed whether it will be possible to reach a final division deciding the fate of the Government on Friday, but the Party whips are endeavouring to reach some compromise regarding the duration of the debatePolitical discussion in the lobbies tonight shows that the more likely explanation of Sir J. Ward’s statement is that he desires an early opportunity if he assumes office of passing legislation authorising the raising of an instalment of £70,000,000 loan for utilisation on the part of his railway completion scheme, thereby making provision for meeting the unemployment situation. If a change-over in Administration should be delayed by reason of the Address-in-Reply debate being prolonged, it might be difficult to get the necessary legislation through before the New Year, lienee the reference to another session in February or March.

SIR J. WARD EXPLAINS.

WELLINGTON, December 6.

Sir J. Ward stated this afternoon tfliat the urgent legislation which he proposes to ask Parliament to pass during the present session, to obviate calling Parliament together again in February, will be to give authority for making financial arrangements so as not to delay the inauguration of the most important parts of the policy which he put before the public during the election campaign. Amongst other things that policy will ensure is work for the unemployed, especially during the winter months. This matter is of such importance, he said, that it ought to be assented to by all members of the House.

POSITION OBSCURE.

THE HIGH COMMISSIONERSHIP.

During the past few days, political cabinet-makers have been busily discussing the prospects if Sir Joseph Ward becomes Prime Minister of New Zealand, and the name of Mr Seddon, ex-member for Westland, has been mentioned as a likely successor to Sir James Parr as High" Commissioner for New Zealand in the Homeland, it being considered likely that Mr Seddon’s past political services will be rewarded. The fact that Mr Seddon lias been visiting Christchurch and Dunedin during the past week, and has consulted Sir Joseph Ward, made the position more intriguing. Mr Seddon returned to Greymouth yesterday, and a “Star” reporter took the opportunity of putting a question to him regarding the High Commissionership“The position at present is very obscure,” said Mr Seddon, and he expressed himself as being unable to make any definite statement on the subject. Until developments occur in Parliament, and the status of the United Party is defined, nothing further will be known as to any likely appointments. A caucus of the party was held last week, but this was mainly of a “get together” nature, to give the members an opportunity of becoming acquainted with each other, and very little actual business was transacted. “So far as the High Commissibnership is concerned,” concluded Mr Seddon. “I can give you nothing definite. In any case, Sir James Parr’s term of office will not expire for some time yet.”