HOLIDAY LEAVE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19971, 4 July 1930, Page 5

HOLIDAY LEAVE.

MR SULLIVAN'S BILL, LABOUR MEMBERS CHARGED WITH WASTING TIME, [THZS PEE 33 Special Cerrlca.] WELLINGTON, July 3. ! "The Labour Party accuses others of wasting time, and then wastes time itself," declared Mr F. Waite (E., Clutha) in the House of Representatives after half a dozen Labour members had spoken to the same effect on Che introduction of the Workers Annual Leave Bill sponsored by Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon). At the conclusion of the debate Mr Sullivan was assured that the Government would enable his Bill to be discussed on the second reading. Mr Sullivan, in asking leave to introduce his Bill, said he had brought it forward also during the past two sessions. The Bill might be termed a "sunshine" measure, as it proposed to bring sunshine, health, and happiness into many lives, and its main proposal was that wage-earners should have an annual holiday on full pay. Mr W. D. Lysnar (R., Gisborne): How long? Mr Sullivan s. Not so long as the holiday the lion, member has on full pay when he takes a trip to England. Continuing, Mr Sullivan said the Bill provided that after twelve months an employee should be entitled to a continuous period of 14 days' leave without deduction of wages. In days gone by New Zealand had been like a light on tho hill bo far as advanced eocial legislation was concerned, but had recently fallen sadly behind. Legislation such as he suggested already existed in Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Russia, and Brazil. Mr H. G. Dickie (R., Patea): But what are conditions like there? Mr Sullivan: The hon. gentleman will get his opportunity later. Mr Lysnar. Are you sure yon are right about Russia? Mr Sullivan: You may be sure I am right about everything I say in this House. We get sarcastic remarks from the Tory benches, but they will have to learn to take the workers and their requirements seriously if they wish to retain their position. Mr Waite: Don't get wild. Mr Sullivan said the International Conference at Geneva," where the Dominion was now for the first time represented, had recently approved of annual holidays on full pay for workers, so that in any case the Government would have to face the question next year. The Leader of the Opposition (the Et. Hon. J. G. Coates): Is that why you are appealing to us because we will be the Government next year? Tho cross talk which developed was closed by the Speaker. Resuming, Mr Sullivan pointed out that -the principle of annual holidays for workers was already recognised in i number of awards. He appealed for he support of the Minister for Railways and of members who had scenic resorts in their constituencies on the ground that the granting of such holidays would enable more people to travel on the railways. Mr W. J. Poison (Ind., Stratford): Better knock off work altogether. Concluding, Mr Sullivan said that John Lovatt, who was responsible for the wide bank holiday in England la»t century, had earned the title of "Saint John," and with the present proposal there was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to become known as "Saint George." (Laughter.) Several Labour members spoke in favour of the proposal. Mr J. S. Fletcher (Ind., Grey Lynn) rose and asked where was the sincerity of the Labour Party. v lts leader had suggested on the previous day that an effort should be made to shorten the Address-in-Reply debate, yet his followers were wasting time by talking on the present Bill. A Labour voice: Are yon against the Bill? Mr Fletcher: No. Mr McCombs took Mr Fletcher to task for his "ill-natured outburst." He said there was no legislation before the House on the Address-in-Eeply, whereas the present circumstances were altogether different. "I should like to say a word to the Labour members who are deliberately wasting time," said Mr Waite. "I want to say that on this occasion I support the member for Grey Lynn, who has been bitterly attacked by that political the member for Lyttelton. This Bill is purely an advertising stunt. The Labour members know the Bill has no earthly chance of getting anywhere." Mr A. M. Samuel (R., Thames) said it was a great pity that a charge had been made against the Bill. He was sympathetic toward the proposaL He believed the principles of the Bill were sound if they could be given effect to. Discussion should be reserved until the Bill was actually before the House. "I object to being dragged in by the t, a ir of the head because I made a more or less jocular remark when it was suggested that the proposals would increase the railway revenue,'' said Mr Poison. "I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposals." Mr E. J. Howard (Lab., Christchurch South): Hooray I Mr Poison said he considered, however, that at a time when the country was seeking economy and a reduction of costs it was not a singularly propitious moment to advance such proposals. That was his only objection. Replying to the debate, Mr Sullivan expressed disappointment that Government members had not displayed more interest in the discussion. The Ministers might at least have evinced the interest that was indicated by the Reform Ministers when the proposals were discussed two years ago. He hoped the prime Minister would give an opportunity for the Bill to reacji the second reading. Mr Forbes promised that he would Bill was then read a first time and set down for the second reading on July 16th.