PARLIAMENT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 12 October 1929, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

THE ESTIMATES. Almost.the whole of yesterday’s sitting of the House of Representatives was devoted to consideration of tho Estimates of the Post and Telegraph Department. Discussion centred mainly on the question whether the "cuts" in salaries should be restored and a Labour amendment seeking to achieve that object was put forward. However, on an assurance being given that a statement on the subject would bo made by the Prime Minister (Et. Hon. Sir Joseph Ward) when lie returned to the House and that an opportunity for discussion would then be afforded, the amendment was withdrawn. The voto for the Department was passed after a long discussion, and then the House rapidly passed the estimates appertaining to the Prisons and Pensions Departments. The House unexpectedly rose an hour before the normal time.

RELIEF WAGES, Notice of motion was given by the Hon. R. Scott (Otago) in the Legislative Council yesterday as follows:

"To ask the Government whether, in view of the economic position of the Dominion and the urgent need to increase production, the time has not now arrived when the wages of single men employed and to be employed on relief W’orks should be immediately reduced in order to enable primary jmqducers to obtain the assistance so urgently needed at this time of the year. ’ ’ Mr Scott added in a note that the rates of wages being paid to- single men on relief works was causing men to leave employment in all parts of the Dominion, TRANSPORT CONTROL. A definite indications as to whether the Government proposed to proceed with the Transport Laws Amendment Bill this session was sought by Mr J. A, Nash (Reform, Palmerston) in the House of Representatives yesterday.

Mr Nash mentioned that an impression was abroad that the Bill was to be dropjmd, and, in view of the desire of local bodies that the Bill should proceed, it was necessary that' the position should be made clear. .

The Minister of Transport (Hon. W. A. Veitch) said there was-no authority for any statement that the Bill would bo dropped. The Government had not decided to abandon the Bill. Mr Nash: And the Bill will go on? The Minister: Yes.

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. "Tho Education Amendment Bill, which provides for Bible instruction in schools, is of no use to the churches as it stands," said the Hon. L. M. Isitt (Canterbury) in the Legislative Council yesterday when the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Bill was resumed.

Mr Isitt stated that plebiscites taken had shown that there was sufficient mandate from the people for Bible instruction in schools, while teachers and school committees had also approved. It was the province and inalienable right of the people to teach the children about the Bible, but when the parents failed in that, the State had the right to step in and set a standard. The system of moral and ethical teaching in our schools did not go far enough. It was the right of the parents to demand from the State some measure of religious teaching. One after the other tho churches had turned down the Bill because its provisions were not considered satisfactory as compared with the original Bill. The Nelson system had been a dismal failure outside the Bill.

The Hon. G. M. Thomson (holding •up a copy of the Bill): This is not the Nelson system. Mr Isitt: What we are dealing with is not the lion, member’s Bill but how the Bill will come out from committee and from another place. If the addition to the Bill suggested by Sir James Allen was accepted those solely interested in the Bible in schools instruction would throw themselves into the work, but otherwise the Bill was of no use to them.

The debate was adjourned until Thursday.

"ROBBERY."

'ls “robbery” a word that should figure in a Parliamentarian’s vocabulary? 'On that point centred a discussion in the House of Representatives yesterday, when some members took exception to a remark by Mr R. Semple 1 (Labour, Wellington East), tliat the ; Reform Government had robbed the Civil servants when it made the salary “cuts.” “Point of order!’-’, cried at least half-a-dozen. Reform members, jumping to their feet simultaneously when the remark was made. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Reform, Riccarton), who first caught the Chairman’s eye, asked whether the term “robibng” was Parliamentary. He submitted it wa3 not. The Chairman said he took it that Mr Semple had not used the term in an offensive way.

Mr’ Semple gave an assurance to that effect.

Mr A. M. Samuel (Reform, Thames) said he did not know what construction could bo placed upon the remark if it was not that somebody had been robbed.

“Might I suggest that the word was used in the same way as the term Bolshevik is thrown across the floor of the House,” said Mr J. McCombs (Labour, Lyttelton). Mr D. Jones (Reform, Mid-. Canterbury) said there was no doubt that robbing meant stealing something from somebody. If it was right to say that

a Government had robbed somebody it was right for him to accuse the Postmaster-General of being a robber. (Laughter). He submitted that the term was unparliamentary.

The legal aspect was explained by the Minister of Justice (Hon. T. M. Wilford), who said that anybody could say hard things against a Government or a local body, but immediately the same things were said about an individual there was ground for action.

Mr R. A. Wright (Reform, Wellington Suburbs) said that Mr Semple had distinctly stated that the Reform Party had robbed the Postal employees by taking something away from their wages. Mr McCombs: You don’t want to deny it, do you? Mr Wright said the point was that the language was, in his opinion, unparliamentary. "But nevertheless true," observed Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon). "It may be true that you are not allowed to say hard things of an individual, hut a group of individuals who have been libelled can take action," said Mr Wright. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr 11. E. Holland) said he was quite suro that nobody wanted +> nso language that was offensive. lie contended'that the terni "robbery" was used in the same way as "confiscation" in respect to land taxation.