BIBLE TEACHING IN SCHOOLS

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21256, 30 August 1934, Page 10

BIBLE TEACHING IN SCHOOLS

<►— SECOND READING OF BILL DELAYED UNLIKELY TO BE RESUMED FOR SOME WEEKS {From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, August 29. The second reading debate on the Religious Instruction in Public Schools Enabling Bill, begun in the four weeks ago to-day, is unlikely to be resumed for several weeks. When the sponsor of the bill, Mr It. Holland (C., Christchurch North), moved on August 1 that the debate be set down for resumption to-day, some surprise was caused at the long interval, particularly in view of Mr Holland's refusal to have the bill sent to the education committee on the ground that suca a course on a previous occasion had delayed the progress of the measure. It is gathered that Mr Holland was placed in an invidious position, but felt bound to make the arrangement which he suggested. As the bill was listed twelfth in the orders of the day for to-day, it was obvious that it would not be reached, particularly as the House is now occupied with the tariff and budget discussions. In an interview to-day, Mr Holland said he could not indicate with certainty when the second feading would be resumed, except that the bill would not be called on again until the Customs Bill and the budget had been dealt with. Stating that the Religious Instruction in Schools Enabling Bill, if enacted, would have the effect of establishing in the State schools a system of religious instruction of exclusive and limited Protestant type, a petition signed by 450 persons and presented to Parliament to-day by the leader of the Opposition, Mr M. J. Savage, prays that the House should not allow the bill to pass. The petition claims that the bill would not increase the efficiency of the national education system; that it would make provision for the State to do the work of the church; that it would abolish a system which for more than 50 years had "brought efficiency and harmony #to the .schools, and incalculable benefits to the population"; and that "it would substitute a system which would inviolate the fundamental principles of justice and impartiality and equality of law."