House of Representatives.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LV, Issue 8583, 17 October 1906, Page 6

House of Representatives.

The House met at 2.30 p.m. Mr Laurenaon asked the Minister, without notice, if bis attention had been drawn to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of which a division is drawn between awards of the Arbitration Court affecting ships registered in New Zealand and awards affecting ships not so registered. The Minister of Labour said he had noticed the matter, and was considering it with v view to meeting the necessities of the situation. The New Zealand International Exhibition Bill was'introduced and read a iirst time. The Aid to Public Works and Land Settlement Bill was read a lirst time. The Unclassified Societies Registration Act Amendment. Bill was read a third time. The Fisheries Conservation Acts Amendment Bill was read a third time. In connection with the Offensive Publications Bill the Hon. Minister of Justice explained the need for searching premises before the actual committal of any offence, and also the destruction of improper publications. Such search and destruction were provided for in the English Act. The House adjourned at 5.30 o'clock. EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30 p m. Mr W. 11. Hemes (Bay of Plenty) criticised the provision for giving power to a single J. P. to issue search warrants. Mr T. M. Wilford (flutt) denounced the " legalised burglary " proposed to be started at the dictum of every irresponsible person who might belong to a " poke-your-nose-into-every-business society." He pointed out that the Bill, after giving every facility to prejudiced or ignorant people, provided no punishment for malfeasance and no remedy to the man whose property might be broken and destroyed. He could only conclude that the Bill was the outcome of some local officer's desire to secure convictions against a person he had hitherto been unable to get at. Mr C. M. Gray (Chnstehurcli North) thought the speech just delivered was " full of sound and fury signifying nothing." The Bill was aimed solely at those who kept for sale or exhibition, and therefore all the tie nunciation fell to the ground. At the same time he had no faith in the average J. P. He had known one witnessing his own declaration. Mr A. L. D. Eraser (Napier) opposed the Bill, which" he pronounced just as deplorable as certain late prosecutions. He regretted the Minister could not lind something better to devote his time to. He marvelled that the question of destroying what might be high works of art should be put in the hands of the J's.P. The Minister was wasting his time and desecrating the House. To be logical the Minister must stop the Maori pah at the Exhibition and close the picture gallery. He hoped the Minister, in reply, would explain how he had allowed the late prosecutions at Auckland. The Minister cited the analogy of the liquor laws and other Acts both in this country and Australia. It was no use denying the fact that there were large numbers of publications in every town, and there was not sufficient power to cope with them, especially as the prosecutions have driven the traffic into secret channels. He defended the late prosecutions, reminding the House that if the Magistrate took time to consider his judgment, a policeman might well be excused if he made a mistake. There had been talk of art, but the proper places for art were picture and sculpture galleries, not postcards. The Bill was read a second time on the voices.