BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 17 July 1930, Page 13

BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

NEW MEASURES INTRODUCED

AMENDMENTS TO DIVORCE LAWS

EQUALITY OF WIFE AND HUSBAND

By T«J«graph.—Prs-ns Association. Wellington, Last Night. Replying to Mr. J. A. Nash when the House 'of" Representatives met to-day, the Hon. J. G. Cobbe said compulsory military training had been suspended for the present. The Government’s proposals would be placed before the House later.

The following Bills were introduced and read a first’time: Meat Export Control Amendment Bill (Mr. TV. D. Lysnar), Rotorua Borough Empowering Bill (Mr. C. 11. Cliukard), Births and Deaths Registration Amendment Bill (the Hon. P. A. de la Pcrreße), Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill (Mr. H. G R. Mason), Evidence Amendment Bill (Mr. Mason), Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Bill (Mr. Mason), Dunedin Waterworks Extension Bill (Mr.- J. W. Munro), Shipping and Seamen Amendment Bill (Mr. Mason).

Explaining the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Bill, Mr. Mason said the Bill was an endeavour to put the wife on an equal footing with the husband in approaching the courts. At present the place where the husband was domiciled was the only place where an application could be made. A husband could apply for a divorce if he had been domiciled in New Zealand for two years, and he proposed to put the wife on a three years’ footing. It was wrong in these days to regard the wife as merely the property of the husband, and the Bill was an attempt to do her justice. The only other important feature of the Bill was the provision that separation by any court (instead of only a New Zealand court as at present) for a term of three years should be a ground for divorce.

Mr. Mason, introducing the Shipping and Seamen Amendment Bill, said it dealt with negligence as a cause of injuries and loss of life at sea, and was largely based on the subject matter of numerous petitions that had been before the House. THE FINANCIAL POSITION. Mr. 11. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, expressed regret that other parties had not. accepted Labour’s suggestion that the debate on the Ad-dress-in-Reply should be curtailed. He declared that the Reform Party had expressed opposition to the payment of standard wages on relief works, whereas the Labour Party considered there should be no relief works at all, but that mon should bo employed on other works and paid standard wages. Both the Government and the Reform Party had referred to the drop in export values, but what they had failed to make clear was that the 1928-29 year, with which comparisons had been made, was an exceptional one. Mr. Holland contended wool, the estimated value of which was £1,322,000, had been held back from export because of the price conditions, thus decreasing export values. There was no shortage of money in the country. There was a huge volume of natural resources, and the problem of the day was to apply the idle labouring power to those resources in a scientific and productive manner. Every palliative that could be conceived might be introduced, but the only real solution of unemployment was to find work. He asked why it was that at a lime like the present, when production had increased, it was not possible to find work for everyone. The difficulties in New Zealand were by no means comparable with those in Britain and Parliament should be able to produce legislation that would deal immediately and permanently with the problem of unemployment.