POLITICAL NOTES

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19142, 27 October 1927, Page 8

POLITICAL NOTES

[THE PEEBS Speclkl Sorrier] WELLINGTON", October 26. Noxioua Weeds. In the House of Representatives early this morning Mr Hawken, Minister for Agriculture, speaking on the subject of noxious weeds, said that on good land noxious -weeds could and should be cleared; that on second-class land the weeds could be kept in check, and that on third-class land it was doubtful whether the value of the land was worth the cost of eradicating the weeds. The Minister said that the officers of the Agricultural Department had no intention of hounding any man to clear his land of weeds. Full warning was always given before firm action was taken against anyone who negleoted the warning to clear the weeds. Mr Hawken added that he was not going to be so foolish as to promise that he would take steps to clear weeds from Government land irrespective of its value. A promise of that nature would involve clearing all the riverbeds of weeds —a task beyond any man. Strong opposition to the Bill was manifested by Mr Lysnar (Gisborne) and Mr Rhodes (Thames), who contended that its enforcement would press hard on the farmers.

On the suggestion of the Prime Minister, who said he understood some other members who were then absent desired to make further representations with regard to the Bill, it was decided to report progress on the Bill.

Bible-in-Schools Bill. The position the Bible-in-Schools Bill will eventually take on the Order Paper trill not be affected by the Education Committee's report, according to a reply given to a questioner by the Prime Minister in the House to-day. Mr Eraser (Wellington Central) the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that ihe member in charge of the measure had talked out the Committee's report, ho would take steps to have the report brought down that afternoon, so that the discussion could be renewed and the report finally dealt with, in order that the Bill would not be unduly delayed in coming before the House. (Laughter.) "I don't think there has been a general demand for the debate on the report to be continued," replied the Prime Minister with a smile. "Personally, I have no objection, but wo have two very' important Bills we desire to get on with. As far as the report itself is concerned, I don't think it will make any difference to the position the Bill will take on the Order Paper when a suitable occasion arises."

Mr Howard (Christchurch South):' The report should make a difference. . The Prime Minister: Every member of tho Hquse knows the. recommendations of the Committee. Mr Harris .(Waitemata): The Bill was not before the Committee. The Prime Minister: It doesn't matter. Mr Parry (Auckland Central): I don't: think anyone would worry if we never saw it again. The Prime Minister: If the report is brought down again to-day it will only be talked out again at 5.30 p.m. The Leader of the Opposition: Does the member in charge of the Bill not wish it to proceed? (Laughter.) The point was not pursued. Nurses' Registration Board. ' Adverse comment on the attitude which the Nurses' and Midwives' Registration Board is alleged to have adopted towards some of the Hospital Boards was made in tho House to-day by Mr Girling (Wairau). The Minister for- Health (Mr Young) is to be asked by Mr Girling if he is aware that tho .Registration Board is causing-consider-able dissatisfaction amongst the Hospital Boards, and that until strong prea* sure was brought to bear it declined to give any rearon to the Wairau Hospital Board for its refusal to, reinstate the Wairau Maternity Hospital as a midwifery training schoql. Mr Girling said that the Registration Board had absolutely refused to receive a deputation from the Wairau Board to allow the latter further to state its case, and that from replies received from otiior Hospital Eoards practically the same conditions applied throughout the Dominion. He asked if tho Minister intended to allow the Registration Board to adopt this high-handed attitnde, not only to the Wairau Board, but towards other Boards concerned in connexion with maternity and midwifery training. Mr Glenn's Position. , Mr W. S. Glenn, the Reform member for Rangitikoi, who has apparent)}' now cut adrift from his Party, and does not attend eaueu3 meetings, is becoming more and more critical of the Government and of Individual Ministers. During a discussion in the House of ]'csen:tatives to-day lie demanded to know what the Minister for Lands was going tp do about a land ranger who had played a joko on a settler about the' pedigree of a bull, which the latter had bought. Mr Glenn said the Minister ought to "sack" tho ranger. The Hon. Mr McLeod, in the course of a speech detailing the'circumstances of the case, said that Mr Glenn was prone to take up farmers' battles and then disappear out of the House. Some time after Mr MeLeod had concluded his speech Mr Glenn returned to the Chamber and stated that he wished to make a personal explanation. He said he had gone out to see the secretary of the Farmers' Union, whom he was interviewing, and that he had been out of the House only seven minutes. It was unfair of the Minister for Lands—

Mr Speaker: Order! Order! Mr Glenn: Very well, Sir, I have made my explanation. Mr Speaker: Order! Order! _ At this stage what promised to bo a lively incident ended, Mr MeLeod altogether ignoring- Mr Glenn's remarks. When is a Man Drunk? A brief incident in which there was some display of licat occurred shortly before the Legislative Council rose this afternoon. In tho course of a discussion of the Polie6 Offences Bill, the Hon. Mr Malcolm had suggested that in order to ensure absoluto protection to the public from motor-drivers affected by drink, the state of drunkenness should be defined as he had noticed a London medical »ian define it—that if any liquor at all were taken it was sufficient to deprive him of. the power of reaction. The Hon. Mr Earnshaw disputed this contention. "What sort of a man can't stand a nip of whisky, anyway?" The Hon. Mr Isitt deprecated the suggestion that if a man was proved to have had one drink he should be adjudged drunk for the purpose of the offence. "That is the sort of thing that doea our Prohibition cause a great deal.more harm than the talk of all our opponents," he declared with emphasis. "It ia impossible for ug to tell whether a small quantity of alcohol will so affect a man 'g judgment that it may be a contributory cause to gome motor-car accident, which would not have occurred if he had not had tho drink. Mr Earnshaw Beems to think that the right