PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20324, 3 August 1929, Page 15

PARLIAMENT.

DULL DAY IN HOUSE.

hours of sitting.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

long budget debate.

[BY TELEf.RAPH.-'-SPECrU, REPORTER.] WELLINGTON. Friday.

One of the dullest days of the session was experienced in the House of Representatives to-day and the adjournment was made at 5.30 p.m. This is the fourth successive Friday on which members by tacit consent have worked a short day at the end of the sitting week, but probablv more streudous Friday hours will have to be worked in the future. The discussion on the report of the Standing Orders Committee was commenced to-day and h expected to be completed on Tuesday afternoon. As it is likely the new 'Standing Orders will be approved and become operative immediately, the House is expected to meet at 10.30 a.m. next Friday, so that members will have to work normal hours to reap the benefit*of the 5.30 adjournment. The approval of the new Standing Orders on Tuesday will also ensure no late sittings during the Budget debate, which will .commenco on Tuesday eveninc, as provision is made for the day's adjournment being taken at 10.30 p.m. Such- a wide field for controversy has been opened up by the Financial Statement that it is expected the debate on it will last at J least three weeks.

NO LATE SITTINGS.

CHANGING HOURS OF HOUSE.

newspapers in the chamber

PROPOSAL TO BAN THEM

[Br TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Friday.

Tho report suggesting important changes in the sitting hours of the House and restricting the length of debates was discussed in the House this afternoon.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Coates, said the report had received careful consideration by his side of the House. He took it that the Government would accept responsibility for the new Standing Orders. It seemed to him they vcmld not bo workable if the Gcjyernment wished to put through much legislation in a session. Without the aid of the closure ho did not think they could be practicable in a busy session. He did not consider half at, hour was sufficient for a speaker in tho Address-in -Reply debate. On the other hand, lie was not in favour of the present practice of extending the present time of one hour. , r The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H E Holland, emphasised the urgency of curtailing "he sitting hours of the House. It was not in the interests either of the country or of members that the House should consider important business at such unthinkable hours. He would have preferred /daylight sittings altogether, but as that was not possible he favoured the proposed hours. He had always considered half'an hour sufficient for each speaker,in the Address-in-Reply debate. He was not in favour of the adoption of the closure, and was glad it was not contained in the proposals. _ Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour—Christchurch South) referred to the prohibition of the circulation of newspapers during a debate, and pointed out that there was nothing to prevent a member from going outside and bringing in a newspaper. He favoured giving the proposals a trial to see how they worked out. Tha Minister of Lands, the Hon. I*. W. Forbes, said he thought the proposals would enhance the reputation of the House for carrying out its work in a businesslike manner. Mr. A. Harris (Reform—Waitemata) Mid lie could not see any objection to tlio circulation of newspapers in tho House so long as the rustling of paper did not hamper the work, and that had never been the case. Mr. 11. E. Holland said he thought a change ought to be made for tho sake of the dignity of the House. It was disconcerting for a speaker to find himself addressing rows of newspapers and to find members giving jio attention to the views he had to express. Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour— Auckland West) said he thought members should be entitled to read editorial and correspondents' opinions, as expressed in the newspapers, as soon as they were available. They might often refer to a subject, such as the Financial Statement, which was being debated at the time, and a member should bo ablo to make himself acquainted with any such views on the subject, whether he agreed with them or not. Ho hoped that tho recommendation to ban newspapers would nc u be adopted. The Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, said he had come to the conclusion that the best thing would bo to drop tho suggestion concerning newspapers. Ho thought there was very little in the objections raised, to the limitation of time for the Address-in-Reply speeches. It was mainly a matter of habit that had caused most members to take a full hour for a speech on this subject. The Address-in-Reply debate as a ruin served no important purpose beyond giving the Government an indication of the various members' views.

Substantial progress was made in the approval of the/ proposals, including the new sitting hours, which are 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. arid 7.30 p.in. to 10.30 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. or( Fridays. The discussion was adjourned until Tuesday afternoon.