NOT THIS YEAR

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 49, 26 August 1926, Page 10

NOT THIS YEAR

SUMMER TIME PROPOSAL

BILL DEFEATED IN LEGISLATIVE

COUNCIL

ON SPEAKER'S CASTING VOTE,

Tho Summer Timo Bill was defeated in the Legislative Council yesterday. The voting on the third leading was a tie, and the Speaker, following the Constitutional custom, gave his casting vote in favour of the continuance of existing conditions, and therefore against the Bill.

The Hon. V. H. Eeed said he opposed tho Bill, because ho did not consider the farmers were prepared for its operation, and it would be injurious to them. If tho Bill was killed this year, but was again passed next year by the House of Representatives, he would not further opposo it, for by that time sufficient time would have been allowed the farmers to prepare for the innovation. Ho explained at length the difficulty of the dairy farmer in getting his cream away, and argued that under the summer time proposal the probability was that the cream would be detrimentally affected before it reached the market. . The Bill would disorganise tho dairy industry, and the country districts should be given sufficient time to prepare for tho introduction of the scheme. It should be delayed for twelve months.

The Hon. M. Cohen:" "It has had twelve years already."

Mr. Eeed: "No, that is altogether wrong. In previous years it has been a joke. It is only just recently that it has been, looked upon seriously."

The same plea of hardship to the farmeiß was made by the Hon. Sir Frederick Lang, who declared it would affect a very large number of country settlers and make their lot more difficult. CONVERSION BY TRIAL. In support of the Bill, the Hon. J. A. Hanan referred to measures which it had taken years to put on the Statute Book, but which no one would now attempt to repeal. By trial they had become universally recognised as necessary, reforms. In England daylight saving had been adopted permanently.

A voice: "How about Australia?"

The speaker said that because Australia had repealed its Act was no reason why it should not succeed in. other countries. All that was asked was a four-months' trial. He believed it would prove of benefit to the country.

If the Government saw anything good in the measure, argued the Hon. B. Scott, it would have brought down a Bill to the same effect itself. He admitted that a large number of country people favoured the proposal, but on the other hand an immense number of townspeople, who believed there were already sufficient facilities for sport, opposed it.

The Hon. W. W. Snodgrass supported the measure.

The Hon. E. Moore pointed out that New Zealand conditions were more comparable to those of Australia than those of England.

OPPONENTS' JOBS THREATENED.

"My contention," declared the Hon. M. Cohen, "is that our conditions are more identical to, and more closely follow, those in England than conditions in any other part of the world." If the Bill was worthy of support next year it was worthy of support to-day. The merits and demerits of the Bill had been amply canvassed in the past twelve months. If the members of the Council, which was only a revisory chamber, took no notice of the support given to a Bill in the House of Bepresentatives their occupation would soon be gone.

The Hon. E. W. Alison declared himself an opponent. He had no doubt that a large majority of townsmen would support the Bill, but they must have regard to the effect on the country districts, upon which we depended for our exports and our prosperity. He argued that conditions in England were entirely different from those in this country. There was an altogether different position in respect to production from the land. It was wrong to contend that because a Bill was passed by the House it should be passed by the Council.

Expressing himself in agreement with Mr. Reed, the Hon. E. Newman said that if a Bill was passed three times by the House of Commons the Lords then considered they should also pass it if previously they had opposed it. The Legislative Council should wait until the Bill had been, passed a third time by the House.

The Hon. C. J. Carrington thought the Bill meant too costly an experiment,, and pointed out that it was proposed it should come into effect at the very time when butter-fat production was greatest. FARMERS REPRESENTATIVES* VOTES.

In the course of his reply, the Hon. J. Barr analysed the list of members who voted for the Bill in the House, pointing out that a large number of them were farmers' representatives. Mr. Heed: "How did tho Ministers vote?"

Mr. Barr: "They wore very shaky, and they will be shakier still later on if this Bill does not go through." (Laughter.) He maintained that tho present year was the best year to make the experiment of daylight saving. If it could be shown that it inflicted undue hardship he would never have another word to say for it. The division on the third reading resulted in equal voting, 16 all, and the Speaker gave his casting vote against the Bill. The division was as followsAyes: Barf, Clark, Cohen, Crai^ie' Earnshaw, HaU-Jonos, Hanan, Isitt, Macgregor, M'ln tyre, Malcolm, Smith Snodgrass, Stout, Thomson, Witty. Noes: Rhodes, Alison, Carrington, Fleming, Guthrie, Hawke, Lang, Mander, Mitehelson, Moore, Newman, Eeid Eikihana, Scott, Sinclair, Stewart. ' Pairs.—Ayes: Michel, Weston. Noes: Gow, Garland.