NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1806, 19 July 1913, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The debate on the Addrcss-in-Rcply, which was brought to a conclusion in the House of Representatives on Thursday night, was not characterised by any strikingly new lines of attack on the part of the opponents of the Government, The criticism was, on the whole, a wearisome iteration and reiteration of allegations, which have been going the rounds of anti-Reform newspapers for months past. ■ Most of them have been disproved over and over again, but that does not seem to prevent their repetition with variations by those disgruntled politicians who form the "Liberal" remnant. In such circumstances it is not surprising that Ministers have found very little difficulty in repelling the attacks. There were a few bright patches in the discussion; but there were also some incidents in which the ordinary requirements of good taste_ were forgotten, and some oratorical efforts which could hardly be distinguished from buffoonery. By a coincidence the two rivals for the position of chief Parliamentary humorist sit on the same side of the House, one being a prominent representative of the liquor trade, and the other a wellknown platform advocate of Prohibition. Mr. Vigor Brown's speech made the best section of his own party more uncomfortable than Mr. Massey and his supporters, and though it is true that some of his efforts raised a laugh, it was quite evident that members were laughing at him and not with him. He, however, did not seem to have the wit to see it, nor the grace to keep his buffoonery within reasonable bounds. It was really quite unnecessary to reply to his wild assertions, for even his own side did not take him seriously. The debate was brought to a conclusion by an interesting speech by Mr. Wilkinson, who, although a new member, shows that he has a sound grasp of political questions. He not only replied effectively to anti-Rc-form criticism, but also carried the war into the enemy's country. He was more than able to hold his own, as was shown b.v bis apt and pointed replies to interjections.

It is not very often that a Labour Bill passes its second reading in the New Zealand Parliament in less than a quarter of an hour, and with the unanimous approval of tho House, but this occurred yesterday with a Government measure. It was a Bill amending the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1911, and was designed to remedy the unfortunate alteration .of the wording of a clause by the Labour Bills Committee of that year. It was Mr. J. A. Millar, then Minister for Labour, we believe, who introduced the Bill in 1911, and one of its provisions went in the direction of extending oncouragemcnt to the conciliation side of the Act. With this objcct in view, it was provided that "industrial agreements" could be entered into between employers and workers, which could lie registered and have tho full effect of an award. It was an excellent idea, designed to as far as possible minimise industrial friction by affording a means o£ adjusting differences hi -mutual..

agreement without recourse to the Court. Unfortunately, as. stated, the Labour Bills Committee made a verbal amendment in the clausc of the Bill, which tho Court has since held mado it impossible to register industrial agreements so entered into. Mn. Massey's Bill now makes the matter right, and is to be retroactive in its effect, so that agreements arrived at sincc 1911 will be made effective under it. The excuse put forward by the member for lnvercargill that he "had been told on reliable authority" that one of the Civil Servicc Commissioners had thrown a file of papers in the face of the Secretary of the Treasury was a very lame attempt to. wriggle out of an awkward situation of his own creation. Mr. H/VNAN had no right whatever to repeat in the House and place on record in Hansard and in the press of the country a cruel slander on a responsible public servant, when he was relying only on idle gossip for his information. Ho is one of the bitterest opponents of the removal of the Civil Service from the reach of political patronage, and is strongly antagonistic to tho Commissioner system, but he should have sufficient sense of justice to realise the unfairness of casting so serious—and as it proved utterly unfounded—a personal reflection on an individual simply because ho objects to_ a system. The Opposition is not likely to do itself any good by to such recklessness, and it is surprising that a member as shrewd as the member for lnvercargill undoubtedly is should allow his prejudice against the Commissioner system to so bias his judgment and blunt his sense of fair play.