PETROL PETITION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21243, 14 October 1940, Page 6

PETROL PETITION

While it was proper for the Prime Minister to draw attention to two irregularities in connection with the presentation of the petrol rationing petition to the House, it is perfectly clear that neither irregularity affects the merit of the prayer in the slightest degree. The first objection was that instead of mentioning the first signatory “ and others ” as is usual in the presentation of petitions, Mr H. Holland selected from the list the name of Mr James Roberts, president of the New Zealand Labour Party. The other was that none of the signatures was attached to the petition itself as reauired by the Standing Orders, with the consequent inference that the signatories might not nave known what they were signing. There is apparently no written rule requiring the mention of the first name on the list “and others,” but Mr Holland was, perhaps, unwise to select the name of Mr Roberts. The laughter that followed probably explained the choice, and it may be that there was no more in it than a little joke that was thoroughly appreciated. In such a serious matter, however, it is much safer to follow custom, lest feelings should be hurt. Regarding the other objection, Mr Fraser would probably agree that it was the most unlikely thing in the world that any of those who signed the petition was not fully aware that he was asking for an increase in the petrol allowance on grounds which have been discussed for many months. Still, the principle is there as a guide to future petitioners. The petition should be of assistance to the Government in arriving at a decision before the end of the present month on the extent to which the ration of petrol should be increased. The Minister has already announced that an increased allowance will be available for November, but there may be a difference between the amount asked for in the petition and the amount that the Minister has, or will have, in mind. It is beyond question that in the public mind there is a strong conviction that the ration should be increased, and in view of the allowance in other British countries the claims of the petitioners do not seem to be excessive.