The Hawera Star. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1928. WHY NOT A PLEBISCITE?

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 22 February 1928, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1928. WHY NOT A PLEBISCITE?

Delivered every evening by i> o'clock in Hawera. Mariaia, Norma.nby, Okaiavva. Eltham. Mangatoki, Kaponga, Alton, Hurleyville Patea, Waverley, Mokoia. Whakamara. Ohangai, Meremere. Frasei Road, and Ararata.

Mr. Sidev has been reported as stating that he is apposed to a suggestion that the popularity of summertime should be tested by a plebiscite taken in conjunction Avith the General Election. Why he should look with disfavour upon such a proposal avc find difficult to understand —and avc Avere staunch supporters of the Bill Avhich has given summertime a four months ’ trial in Netv Zealand. By questioning Mr. Sidev’s attitude to the suggestion under consideration, Ave are not ranging ourselves alongside the die-hard opponents of summertime. We Avere of the opinion that the alteration could be brought into operation Avith out the forebodings of its opponents being realised, but Ave consistently made it clear that all the sponsors of the Bill Avere asking for, and all avc \A-ere supporting, Avms a fair trial for the measure; if, after a trial the innoA-a-tion were found to be unacceptable to a majority, or to any appreciable number, Ave declared avc Avould bo among the first to advocate that the legislation should not find a permanent place on the Statute Rook. And it is just here that we, find oursohms in conflict Avith the present attitude of Mr. Sidev. The sole object of the Summertime Rill, as avc understood it, Avas to give the people an extra hour of leisure during daylight. Those Avho advocated the adoption of the measure in th e face of the emphatic opposition of Its opponents, did not do so in the belief that certain sections of the community should be called upon to make sacrifices for the pleasure of any other sections; rather did they believe that once the alteration came into operation, all sections of the community—-

or at least all those folloAA-ing. Avhat may be termed normal callings—would benefit. We, in common Avith many other supporters of the Bill, reseiA-ed to ourselves the right to change our opinion if it Avere found that the benefits were not shared by practically everybody; in the event of that aim not being realised, there could be no further object in wishing to see summertime enforced. While Ave do not believe that summer time has failed to provide some of the benefits anticipated, avo feel that neither Mr Sidev nor we have sufficient evidence before ns to warrant the assumption that the measure has been entirely successful. Nor have those who have consistently opposed the innovation sufficient grounds for claiming, on behalf of the Avhole population of NeAV Zealand — for after all we are not ail dairy farmers—that summertime [has proved a failure. All we Ichoav for certain is our oAvn individual attitude toAvards the continuance or discontinuance of summertime, and though it has to 'be admitted in fairness to the protesting farmer that he can find other farmers to support his protest, it cannot be claimed that all of those engaged in the primary industries see no good in the measure. A plebiscite offers the only means of obtaining a true consensus of opinion, and we, for our part, can see no reason why Mr. Sidev, or any other supporter of summertime, should not welcome such an opportunity of testing public feeling on this point.