SUMMER TIME

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 276, 4 November 1933, Page 8

SUMMER TIME

GOVERNMENT TO MOVE MR McKEEN WITHDRAWS BILL. MR WRIGHT COMPLAINS. By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, Nov. 3. When the committee stage of Mr R. McKeon’s Summer Time Amendment Bill was reached in the House of Representatives to-day the Hon. J. A. Young said he had been asked by tho Prime Minister to state that the matter was under consideration by the Government and that it was proposed to introduce a bill on the subject. He suggested that Air McKeon should withdraw his bill in the meantime. Mr McKeen said that ho had no objection to the Government taking over the amendment of the Summer Time Act, but he hoped that this suggestion was not another means of shelving it. He asked whether the Government would undertake to pass the bill this session. Mr P. Fraser (Lab. —Wellington Central) said that the suggestion indicated a desire on the part of the Government to prevent work being initiated by private members. It was an •‘unprecedented act of governmental selfishness.” Mr R. A. Wright (Indopdt.—Wellington Suburbs) said that the move showed what an absolute farce it was to allow private members to introduce bills. Parliament was degenerating and this was the climax. The bill had been discussed freely on the second reading, and the member in charge of the bill (Mr McKeen) had agreed to a compromise to which there appeared to be no objection. He was now being told that he was to be opposed by the Government. ‘‘Mr Chairman, it is because he is a Labour member,” Mr Wright declared. ‘‘l have fought Labour members myself, but I like fair play.” NO MINISTERIAL PROMISE.

Mr M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) said he could support what Mr Wright had said. The Minister had made no promise that the bill would be passed this session. Mr Young said that before the Prime Minister’s departure for the south he had said that it was proposed to introduce a bill on the subject. Mr Forbes had not discussed the matter with him in detail. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab. —Christchurch East) said that the suggestion before the House was mean and paltry. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe said that Mr Wright had used language that he would not have used had the Prime Minister been present. He was apparently conducting a vendetta against the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and the Minister expressed the opinion that Mr Wright’s language had been ungentlemanly. The Minister added that he had no knowledge of any antagonism towards the Labour Party and that he considered there was no thing to be gained by the complaints that were being made. MH WRIGHT'S DEFENCE. The Rev. C. Carr (Lab. —Timaru) said that Mr Wright was ‘‘too old a dog to learn new tricks,” and that any ungentlemanly language that he might have used —and he (Mr Carr) did not admit that Mr Wright had used ungentlemanly language —must have come from his former association with the Government. Mr Wright said that the language he had used had been used in accordance with the standing orders. It had not been ungentlemanly, and he would have used it had Mr Forbes been present. He would use it at any time he liked. ‘‘l am afraid of nothing and of nobody,” be said. ‘‘The language I used was not one bit too strong for the state of affairs that we are facing.” After further discussion Mr McKeen agreed to withdraw the bill in tho meantime on the assurance that a Government bill would be introduced.