JOTTINGS FROM THE LOBBY

Hokitika Guardian, 29 October 1920, Page 1

JOTTINGS FROM THE LOBBY

(Our Parliamentary Correspondent.) • HANK OF N.Z. WELLINGTON, Oct. 28. Hon W .F. Massey, referring to the Hank of New Zealand Bill, said that its effect would he to increase the State’s interests in the bank from one seventh to about one third. Hie additional income derived by the State from the. Bank under the scheme would be over eighteen thousand pounds. the Cost of living. The Imprest Supply Hill was; introduced in the House in the evening. It gave rise to a prolonged debate on the cost of living question. The discussion followed familiar lines. Members, particularly from the labour benches, charged Government with having failed to control prices. Mr McCombs (Lyttelton) moved as an amendment that in the opinion of the House, the session ought not to end without a definite effort to check the rapidly rising cost of living." He suggested'cheaper butter, the removal of customs duties, and drastic legislation against profiteering. Mr Potter (Roskill) declared that increased prices were due largely'to loud mouthed agitators, who promoted discontent and discouraged industry and production. When members had handled the subject from the various points of view, Mr Massey mentioned that the expenditure. from the Consolidated Fund for th e last six months had been thirteen millions. He- could not abandon any revenue unless members were prepared to let him have one million by ceasing to subsidise bread and butter. The amendment was eventually rejected emphatically, and the Hill was passed. MARRIAGE LAW.

'The Marriage Amendment Bill containing a clause dealing with “mixed marriages” was before the House of Representatives again. The. Legislative Council’s clause made it an offence for any person to question the validity of a legal marriage in this country. The Bill was returned to the House for con. sideration of this amendment, and was referred to a special committee, which recommended that the House should agree with the amendment, with the ex-it-option of the words “imprisonment for one year.” The effect of this exception was to make the offence of questioning a legal marriage, punishable by fine only, as far as the Bill was concerned. The committee had received from the Solicitor-General, the opinion that if the clause became law, a Roman Catholicwould still he able to promulgate the doctrine that marriage other than ai marriage performed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, was not a sacrament, but would be debarred from alleging that persons otherwise married were living in adultery. The debate that followed showed the House to be well divided on the subject. The Leader of the Opposition (Hr Wilford) expressed strong opposition to the clause, which he regarded as unnecessary ,and likely to cause leligious'bitterness. Any woman whose chastity was impugned had a remedy at law, find at was not necessary to adojit a special provision that would offend one religous denomination. Several members said hard things about Mr Howard Elliott, who was described as a maker of discord and a promotor of religious bigotry. His truthfulness was also called into question^ Mr Massey supported the clause. He said it merely provided that no person should question the validity of a lawful marriage. Ho would he prepared, it necessary, to support a proposal to establish a civil system of marriage, such as obtained in some other countries, where a civil marriage was the on y marriage recognised by the State, the parties being at liberty to arrange a supplementary .feligiouss_ ceremony tc suit themselves. \ The debate was interrupted by dinner adjournment. It may.be resumed to-morrow.