THE WEEK IN PARLIAMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16569, 31 October 1921, Page 6

THE WEEK IN PARLIAMENT.

LOYALTY AND EDUCATION SOME SHREDS AND PATCHES. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, October 29. At tho beginning of the week, those people whose business it is to be on duty while tho House of Representatives makes its laws were looking for cushions and endeavouring to convert hard seats into comfortable couches. These were preparations for the fight on the Gaming Amendment Bill. The week lias ended and the cushions have not been required, though it appears now that they shortly will be. Tins session the proceedings of Parliament have been rather dull and lifeless, and the racing debate was looked for an occasion which would at least relieve the monotony. Members do not. yet know their own minds as to t>e course to! he adopted with the repoi t . but those who had hoped to arrive at a satisfactory compromise are now beginning to realise the hopelessness of their position. As it » the most exciting event of the week has been produced by tlio Education Bill. The members who debate education are uot remarkable lor oratorical ability ; but this time thei e was an incentive to argument in the clause which proposes that teachers shall b© required to take an oath of allegiance. The Labour members waxed sarcastic about this and some bitter things were said of the Hon C. J. Parr and his connection with the Weitzel case. Mr R. A. Wright made a load and heated reply and, spurred on by the Labour benches, stated that there were professors at Victoria College who would find difficulty m taking the oath of allegiance. For a time it even appeared that the House was coming back to old time form and members were saying things because they really meant them.. Such debates have not been . the rule in the House for some time. Usually the fight is such as that experienced on the Peace Treaties Extension Bill on Thursday, when the indentured labourer and the rliinocerous beetle of Samoa were trotted out to do a weary rbund of debate. The lines of the Labour attack and the reply by Mr Isitt are now so well known that the debate could very well have been taken as read. Even Labour now takes a little spurring to make its attacks upon the Government. The most heated opposition becomes stale after a time, when it is known that, however the talk may go, the tale when the division bell rings, will be just the same old story. A spur was given on Wednesday by the usually peaceably-disposed Minister for Labour (Mr Anderson). In introducing tb© Arbitration Bill, to settle the difficulty arising from Mr Al’Cullough’s resignation, Mr Anderson made what) all the Labour benches regarded as a provocative speech. Air Howard said that the Minister had trailed his coat, and other members suggested that the reason was that the Government had to induce the House to talk on something or else the House would be ahead of its business. If this were the Government’s intention it succeeded admirably, for the debate was continued until nearly midnight. It was mainly talk, for no one had any new and wonderful patent medicine to offer for the cure of the sickness in the body of industry. The Bill anyway had little to do with tho general principle of conciliation and arbitration. It waa only a patch on what Air Holland described a garment already tattered and torn.

The best working day of the week Mas Tuesday when the House disposed finally of the Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Bill (it may appear next session, of course) and the Law Practitioners Amendment Bill, and gave a second reading to the Local Bodies’ Finance Bill which is designed to set in ord*r the finances of the local bodies. There was something of a disposition on the part of members who have experience of local affairs to tell the Government to take a dose of its own medicine. The Hon J. AT’Gregor and the other members of the Legislative Council have been having what might be termed a busy week. They have dealt faithfully with everything transmitted to them by tho House, and have sent along to the House with Mr M’Gregor’s blessing the Juries Amendment Bill which may give some difficulty to that chamber. Members there are not likely to accept without demur the proposal to allow majority verdicts by juries in criminal trials.