PARLIAMENT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 10168, 25 July 1924, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

LECSSLATJVE COUNCIL.

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 24 The Council met at 2.30.

The Hon. J. MacGregor moved the second reading of the Bills of Exchange Act Amendment Bill, which provides that where a banker in good faith and without negligence pays a cheque drawn upon the bank, and the cheque has been tso drawn as to afford facility for fraudulent alteration of the amount and had been so fraudulently altered, the bank shall not incur any liability by reason of its having paid the cheque. Several speakers objected that there was no call for the measure, that not sufficient reason had been shown for removing the liability upon banks, and that it would cause, them to become less vigilant. The second reading was carried on a division of 17 to 8, and the Bill was referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.

The third reading of the Juries Act Amendment Bill was agreed to by 18 to 5 and the Bill passed._ The Council adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 2.30 next Wednesday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.30. The adjourned debate on the Prime Minister’s motion that the Legislature Act Amendment Bill should be introduced was resumed by Mr McKeen, who continued his opposition to the measure. The Hon. W. Nos worthy criticised the Labour Party for favouring proportional representation in New' Zealand when Mr Ramsay MacDonald opposed it in 'Britain. Messrs Sullivan, Parry, O’Brien and Bartram also spoke to the motion, each opposing the Bill, the speakers alleging that it was aimed at the destruction of the Labour Party. At 5.30 p.m., when the House adjourned, the debate was unfinished and was again adjourned. The House resumed at 7.30.

Mr Sidey moved tlie second reading of the Summer Time Bill. He said the measure was simply following. Nature by putting the hour of starting work nearer to sunrise. The proposal was on the first Sunday in October to advance the clock one hour far five months of the year. To farmers, dairymen and others who used early morning hours, lie appealed to be generous, and so meet other sections of the community whom the Bill would benefit. From an economic point of view the change proposed would_ mean a saving in the cost of lighting, fuel, etc., to the extent of many thousands of pounds per annum. lie admitted that a certain section of dairymen would suffer slight inconvenience but it would be .very slight. In Britain the movement had been a great success, and this fact had been proved by flip commission which made an exhaustive inquiry into the operation of the Act upon sections of the community. Mr Holland said he was prepared to admit that there were certain industries where summer time could be applied, blit there were other industries where it could not be applied. He did not think it should be forced on to them. At the same time there was no reason why those who wanted summer time should not adopt it without changing the clocks. It was done in certain cases. He understood many dairy farmers objected to the Bill, but ho did not know what certain other industries thought about it. Bill j

sfftnild go to a committee, and later it would be open to those who desired changes made in the Bill to propose them. Meanwhile he would support the second reading. Mr Hawken said that because the measure was a success in Britain was not to say it would be a success in New Zealand. It would cause great inconvenience to dairymen to comply with the conditions of the Bill. Dairymen in the North Island would have to go to bed at 6 o’clock in the evening a time when no self-respecting hen would go to roost. This was simply an experiment and he objected to ducks and drakes being played with the dairy industry just for the sake of trying an experiment. 'Mr Hockly said he was definitely opposed to the Bill. It simply means adding an hour to the working day of the farmer and so reducing his hours of rest. To test which members were friends of the farmers lie moved that the Bill be read that day six months. The Hon. W. Nosworthy said that ho had opposed the Bill on every occasion when it was before the House, and he would oppose it now on principle. It would be extremely detrimental to dairy farmers who had troubles enough without such a Bill as this. Mr Fraser urged that a select committee should be set up which would take evidence from not only farmers, but from industrial and sports interest^. . Mr Massey said he was opposed to the Bill, because as a practical man he believed it to be impracticable. Mr Bruce had told him that the effect of a similar Bill in Australia was that if it had not been repealed they would have had a revolution. It was not farmers who were opposed to it as much as the workers in the cities. He said his experience in Canada and America was that the measure was a failure, while in Britain, so far as he could see, farmers took, no notice of it. If the Bill passed it would be as great a failure as it was in Australia, where conditions were nearer to ours than those of other countries.

After a number of members had spoken for and against, Mr Sidey briefly replied. He offered to limit the scope of the Bill froni' November 1 to February 1. He was satisfied to let the measure go to the committee if the second reading was agreed to. At 11.55 p.m. a division was called for, when the second reading was carried by 36 to 24. The Bill was then refeired to a committee to be set up by the House. The Prime Minister indicated that the Pent Restriction and Imprest Supply Bills would be taken next day. The House rose at 12.10 a.m. till 2.30 p.m. 5