SUMMER-TIME.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 26 July 1924, Page 16

SUMMER-TIME.

MR. SIDEY’S BILL. GOOD SUPPORT ON SECOND READING. WELLINGTON, July 24. The daylight saving proposal embodied in the Summer Time Bill introduced by Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) was debated in the* House toil ight, when the second reading of the Bill was carried by 36 votes to 24 and the measure was referred to a committee to be S €t up by the House. Mr Sidev said the measure was simply following nature by putting the lioui' of stalling work nearer to sunrise. The proposal was that on the first Sunday in October the clock should be advanced one hour for five months of the year. To farmers, dairymen and others who use the early morning. hours he appealed to he generous, and so meet other sections of the community which the Rill would benefit. From the economic point of view, added Mr. Sidey, the change proposed would mean a saving in cost of lighting, fuel, etc., to the extent of amny thousands of pounds per annum. He admitted that a certain section of dairymen would suffer slight inconvenience, but it would be very .slight. In Britain it had been a great success, and this fact had been proved by the commission which had made an exhaustive inquiry into the ooeration of the Act upon all sections of the community.

Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) said he was prepared to admit that there were certain industries to which summer time could be applied, but there were other industries where it could not bo applied and 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 could not adopt it without changing the clocks; it was done in certain cases. He understood many dairy farmers objected to the Bill, but he did not know uhat certain other industries thought about it. The Bill should 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. F. F Hoc-klv (Rotorua) said he was definitely opposed to the Bill. It simply meant adding an hour to the working day of the farmer, and so reducing his hours of rest. The Hon. \Y. Xoswortiiv opposed the Bill on the principle that it would be extremely detrimental to dairy farmers, who had troubles enough without such' a Bill a,s this. Mr. R. Masters (Stratford) opposed the Bill as being prejudicial to farming interests. _Mr. Massey said he was opnosino- the Bill because as a practical man lie believed it to be impractical. Mr. Bruce bad told him the effect of a similar Bill in Australia wa s that if it bad not been repealed they would have had a revolution. It was not the farmers who ! were opposed to it as much as the workers in cities. He said bis expedience in Canada and America, was that the measure was a failure, while in Britain, so far a.s he could see, farmers took no notice of it. If the Bill were passed it would be as great a failure as it was in Australia, where the conditions were nearer to ours than those of other countries. Mr. Sidey briefly replied. He offered to limit the scope 6f the Bill from November 1 to February 1. He was satisfied to let the measure go to a committee if the second reading was agreed to. ” At ll.o.) o.ni. a division was called tor when the second reading was earned by 36 votes to 24. The Bill was then referred to a committee to be set up by the House.