PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIII, Issue 34, 9 October 1915, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. I I'ER PEEKS ASSOCIATION. i Wellington, October 8. j Hon. Sir F. H. 1). Bell moved the , second reading of the Cost of Living [. BilL I Hon. J. T. Paul contended that the. Bill did not go tar enough. The Board could not doubt collect valuable . information, but its power to act was , I limited. The cost of living was now | | pressing very hard on workers ind it j would be mouths before anything could result from the work of the i i Board, which, in his opinio/:, should j - be empowered to fix prices. < Hon. W. Earnshaw thought the . I Bill mar'Kea an advance in the effort j to deal with this subject, and welcom- > ed it because it suggested lines to go j i upon which would prove practical and i , efficient. j Hon. J. Barr said one of the chid' " difficulties in regard to the cost of living was the credit system; people ' could largely help themselves, were they so inclined. : HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. EDUCATION BOARDS. > When the House resumed after , lunch, Mr Guthrie said he favored ! seven districts, hut, whatever the i House decided upon, he thought no > one would be treated unjustly. M. J. Craigie said the Bill was a most contentious one, and should have been held over till after the war. Be did not consider the abolition of t,he smaller boards advantageous. Centralisation was a farce. He protested against the abolition of the South Canterbury Board. Mr G. J. Anderson contended that small boards were advantageous to the teachers, and he favored letting things remain as they are. Failing that, he considered they should be abolished altogether, and the schools put under the central office in Wellington. The seven districts suggested by tbe Com-, mission were too large to give justice to the small settlements, and he would support with great enthusiasm the abolition of boards altogether. Mr G. Witty regretted that the Oo- [ vernment had not adhered to the de- . cision of the Commission. Under the 3 circumstances the whole thing was a waste of time and money. , Mr J. Payne declared that the system of boards was; obsolete : the system was a woeful waste of public money. Centralisation would economise, and he would vote for any motion that would reduce the boards to the lowest possible number. Mr W. Nosworthy said-he was going to set aside all parochi'ali interests. He was going to vote (or the report of the Commissioners. Seven districts were sufficient. Mr C. J. Talbot congratulated the National Cabinet upon their decision : to increase the number of boards to nine, to preserve as much as possible the community of interests. , Mr .1. Anstey said the figures published in the Commissioners' report showed the administration of the 'South Canterbury Board was, within, ,a. point oil two. as'economical as that of Wellington, which went to show that the smaller districts were not wasteful'. The districts should,be 'increasedto<ten. '' ' ?.:."" 1 JHi\.H.<. J. 01% supported the'increase: of the districts to uine, and Mr W. T.i Jennings said his- Vote would i depend upon tbe Minister's explanation of how the new boundaries affected Taranaki. More absurd boundaries could, not be conceived than those set out in the Commission's report. > Mr A. Walker contended that the decision of the Commission was fair, , equitable, broad and national. Mr J. A. Hanan said that no one with a sense of responsibility could vote for the amendment, because the Act of last session necessitated the Bill. Otherwise a state of delay would \ arise. There was no intrigue behind ! the Bill, but it was brought down in ■ accordance with law. The SolicitorGeneral had given his opinion that if the Bill was not passed the report of the Commission would take effect automatically. The position would then be that there would, be.thirteen boards without districts, and seven districts without Boards. He left it at that. The Bill was read a second time on the voices. When the Bill was committed, at clause two, Mr McCallum moved to i strike out nine, with a view to inserting ten districts. The amendment was lost by 30 to 25, and the Bill passed without amendment. On the motion that the Bill be read the third time. Mr Guthrie said that when the vote took place in the afternoon a great many members were under the impression that if they voted 1 to strike out the word "nine," it necessarily followed that "ten" would be inserted. These members wanted the number reduced to seven, and had voted to retain nine to prevent the number being increased to ten. He felt it necessary that this explanation should be made. Mr Payne "moved that, the Bill be recommitted, with tbe object of reconsidering clause 2. The motion was defeated by 33 to '2l and the third reading was carried on . the voices. 'BCTuc—CT ii i i urn mum ii ma