Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 30, 1927. THE BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVII, Issue 306, 30 November 1927, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 30, 1927. THE BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT.

The order paper of the House of Representatives on Monday, when the House met at 2.30 p-m., contained no less than 36 orders of the day covering the consideration of Bills in various stages, and of special reports of the Lands and Privileges Committees. There were also some 28 notices of motion, a good many of which have been appearing on the order paper day after day from early in the session. The more notable of the measures which have still to come before the House are the Public Works Amendment, the Education Amendment, the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration, the Licensing Amendment, the Gaming Amendment and the Cinematograph Pilms Bills, and it is a moot point how far these Bills will be allowed to proceed, for there are yet other Bills to come down such as the Finance and Appropriation Bills, and other measures are still being asked for. And while such signs of the close of the session are observable in the bringing down of the Supplementary Estimates and the introduction of the “Washing Up? Bills; both of which have been dealt with, it is still difficult to say when the session, will definitely end. It may be taken for granted, however, that practically all the private members’ Bills will be jettisoned. Mr Fraser (Wellington Central) has four such Bills, which have been on the Order Phper for several weeks-now. They are his “Right to Work” Bill, his Local Elec T tions and Polls Amendment Bill (the most sensible of the measures he is desirous of introducing, as it would make the method of voting at Parliamentary and Municipal elections the same); his Building Trades Employees’ Tools of Trade Insurance Bill, and his Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill, all of which are down for the second reading. The first of these measures would have no chance of success in the House as it is at present constituted, and the principle it would introduce—that of the payment as an allowance to every unemployed worker of the standard rate of wage in his. ordinary employment—is certainly undesirable, as it would simply encourage loafing on the State. The Judicial Proceedings Bill for the regulation (and suppression, for such it would amount to) of reports, which include unsavoury details of divorce cases, etc-, is unnecessary in this country, where the average newspaper is cleanly conducted and, generally speaking, above reproach in such matters. Mr H. E. Holland has a Crimes Amendment Bill, on the stocks, the underlying idea of which is to extend the same right of challenging jurors to persons charged with criminal offence's as is extended to the Crown —to extend, that is, to the accused person the same limit of challenge as is permitted to Crown Prosecu-

tors. The Bill is, at best, of very doubtful merit. Mr McCombs wants his Daylight Baking Bill to pass through committee. It is scarcely 'likely to get there and is certainly not wanted by the public, • the general run of people, not afflicted with dyspepsia, preferring new bread to stale. Mr Savage has two measures down for the second reading—the Fair Rents and Family Allowances Amendment Bills, neither of which is seriously asked for nor required. But they serve to advertise the willingness of the member for Auckland West to proceed far afield in his endeavours to help one class of his fellowmen at the expense of the remainder. Mr Wilford’s Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Bill is far down (No--29) on the list. Its second reading this session appears to be hopeless, and Mr J. Mason’s Juries Amendment Bill is in very much the same case. The Palmerston North Library Empowering Bill has been passed by the House without debate, and there are four other local Bills still to be disposed of, which seem to have a better chance of going through this session than any of the private mmebers’ Bills we have referred to. So far as the notices of motion are concerned, the Minister of Lands and Agriculture appears to be on the hox seat. Mr McLeod heads the list with two notices of motion, and Mr Hawken closely follows him with eight others, Mr Wilford slipping-in between the two Ministers and asking for a return showing the areas of each species of tree planted annually from 1920 to 1927, though what good purpose such a return, when supplied, will serve it is not easy to see. The member for Wanganui has been particularly active in giving notices of motion, eight of which, all with a possible “catch” in them, are standing on the order paper in his name. But they are far down on the list, and it is doubtful if his curiosity will be satisfied in regard to the working of the railway sawmills and house factory; the payments made to members of the Eauri-gum Control Board, the Meat Export Control Board, the Fruit Control Board, the Honey Export Control Board and the Dairy Export Control Board, from the funds of such boards, in respect of salary, travelling expenses and allowances, etc. Nor is it to be expected that he will fare any better in his desire to obtain a return showing “the names of all Government officers or employees who have travelled abroad at the Government’s expense during the last four years, the reasons for and the cost of each such excursion, and also the length ,of service of each such person on his return to New Zealand-” Curiosity, and the desire to secure information on each and all of these subjects is pardonable, and it is possible that the information, if and when supplied, would provide Mr Yeitch with a certain amount of political ammunition, likely to be of service to his campaigning on behalf of the party he represents. If the opportunity is not afforded him of moving for the returns he is after, Mr Yeitch 'will have cause to complain of the dilatoriness of the House and particularly of the obstructionist tactics of the Labour Opposition in -occupying so much of the time of Parliament in talking to little or no purpose. But, even then, we question whether he will have greater cause for complaint than the member for Oroua whose notice of motion calling for a return, setting forth certain particulars in regard to the revenues derived from all . sources by the Common Fund of the Public Trust Office “and the amount of interest; credited to local body government and other sinking funds under the control of the Public Trustee,” etc., has been on the order paper from the earliest days of the session. Mr Eliott’s case appears to illustrate with special force the saying that the first shall be last and the last first, for his notice of motion now finds its plajpe at the bottom of the list.