BILL "KILLED."

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19148, 3 November 1927, Page 8

BILL "KILLED."

BIBLEIN-SCHOOLS. DEBATE IN HOUSE. AMENDMENT FAVOURING NELSON SYSTEM CARRIED. WELLINGTON, November 2. The Religious Exercises in Schools Bill was "killed." in the House of Representatives to-night. An amendment, moved by Mr Atniore, "that the Bill be read this day six months," was carried by 36 votes to 31.

Members arrived at the House this afternoon fully prepared for an all-night sitting, and the galleries were crowded, when Mr H. Holland, who sponsors the Bill in the House of Representatives, was called upon to move the second reading of the Bill.

Immediately, Mr Fraser (Wellington Central) raised a point of order, —That sub-Clauses B and C of Clause 3 were appropriation clauses, inasmuch as they involved expenditure on books (a hymnal and a manual) to be prepared by the Education Department,, and given to children in necessitous circumstances; also, that sub-section 2 of that Clause was an appropriation, inasmuch as it involved expenditure on a conference of representatives of Christian Churches, which was to be convened by the Minister for Education. He submitted that it was not a question of the amount of expenditure—whether it was large or small was beside the point—it was against the Standing Orders to impose expenditure in this way and equally out of order to bring it before the House in this way. Authorities were quoted at great length in sup-, port of this view. Mr Speaker said it was clear to him (that if there was any appropriation—and ho was not ruling on that point—it was purely incidental to the Bill, and was not the main purpose* of the Bill. He would, therefore, in the first instance, leave the question of whether there was or was not an appropriation to tho Chairman of Committees, and if his ruling was questioned he (Mr Speaker) could be called upon to give it further consideration.

Mr Holland's Speech. Mr Holland said it was a peculiar thing that an Act of Parliament should be necessary to introduce the Bible into the schools, and to bring before tho children God as the Divine Father of all. They .were treating the Bible as a vile reptile endangering tho welfare of the people. Magistrates and social workers were constantly complaining of the absence of religious training in the schools, and this Bill made it perfectly clear what was intended." No Christian Church would be excluded from representation at the proposed conference. Nothing could be more democratic and he could not • imagine how any democrat could vote against the Bill, which was long overdue. Not only had it been considered by Beveral Parliaments, extending over several decades, but by all Churches, social workers, and those who had the welfare of the young at heart. Ho believed the Bill was urgently needed, and, because he believed there was an overwhelming majority in favour of it, he had consented to take charge of the measure. He eulogised the literary and oratorical treasures in the Bible as a book, and claimed that it was such literature as the Sermon on the Mount which exalteth a nation. These could only have an elevating influence upon the rising generation. No parent surely would object to his children reading such beautiful literature.

Majority for the Bill? That there was a numerical majority in favour of the Bill he had no doubt, and he quoted the strength oj the united Christian Churches as over a million. Perhaps not every adherent was in favour of the Bill, but the great majority undoubtedly were. Only two Education Boards had refused to assist the promoters of the Bill. That the teachers as a body were hostile to the Bill he denied. He believed they would loyally carry out the provisions of the Bill if it became law. At a vote taken on the point 530 teachers voted for Bible reading in Schools, and 350 against, which was at least a substantia] majority. His information was that no teacher in Australia had ever asked for'exemption from this phase of duty, and no teacher in our secondary schools had asked for exemption. As .to the feeling of the people on this point, he mentioned that when the Bill was last before the House it was lost by one vote. Of those who voted against it 16 were now out of the House, and only 4 of those who voted for it were now out of Parliament. That was a solemn warning to those opposed to the Bill, in view of the election next year.

He agreed that the Bible should be taught in Sunday schools, and in the homes of the people, but the people had been for fifty years without religious teaching in the schools, and they lost interest in it. For those who favoured the Nelson systom provision was made in 'the Bill to meet their wishes. Over the whole Dominion 80 per cent, of the people favoured Bible teachine in the schools. He quoted the evidence of Mr Strong. Director of Education, given before the Parliamentary Committee to show that there was no longer any justification for excluding the Bible from the schools and denying to teachers and children such splendid teaching material as was found therein. He quoted the late Mr Seddon as having snid that Bible reading in the schools should bo one. of the questions submitted to the people under a referendum. Other prominent members held exactlv similar views, but did not permit their personal views on the education question to interfere with their belief that ! the neople had n right to settle this ouestion. He thanked members for •their patient hearing, and moved tha second reading. Mr Atmore's Amendment. Mr Atmore' (Nelson) said the platform of the Reform Party favoured the national system of education, and on that they wero elected at last election. Yet the honourable member, in introducing the Bill, claimed that he had a majority of that Party pledged to support him, and also nine members of Cabinet. He declared that this was only the beginning of an attempt by the church to get its work done by the State. If this Bill were passed, there would be no just reason why State aid should not be given to Roman Catholic Schools. He moved as an amendment, "That the Bill be read this day six months, in order that its promoters may have an opportunity of considering the Nelson System, as recommended by the Education Committee."

Sir Apirana Ngata Reproves Churches. Sir Apirana Ngata (Eastern Maori) seconded the amendment. He said he was mainly concerned with the portions of the Bill which dealt with Maori schools. No evidence had been given before the Committee as to the effect the Bill would have on the Native school system, which was different from that of the Pakeha. The reading of

the Bible in several Maori districts would have serious results owing xo the number of sects and "isms" that had sprung, up. He instanced the Rua sect as a case in point. If the Bible were introduced into Native schools, it would be greatly misuuderstood, and might lead to the withdrawal of many children from those schools. At hisown college, To Aute, they read the Bible, and with good results, but that was a church, school, and it was quite differont from reading it in the. secular schools. It was, ho added, the greatest ;con* ssion he knew of in history, of 'the weakness of the churches, that they should come to Parliament to introduce religions exercises in schools. It was a confession that the churches were not carrying out their jobs in the churches, amongst their communities, and in the homes. It seemed to him that we were reaching a stage in this countrv similar I to that which had existed in the Mother country, and which had caused-people to emigrate in order to securo their freedom.

Prefers Nelson System. Mr Hudson (Motueka) said that as chairman of the Education Committee he felt he had some responsibility in this matter. He agreed with much that the mover of the Bill had said, and he was determined to do everything possible to give the children religious training in the schools. It was only a question of how it should be done. Did this Bill provide the best way to do it? He thought not. He preferred the Nelson System, which he described as "Sunday School on week days." He thought that system should be adopted all over the Dominion, but if that could not be done, then let the Bill before the House come into force. He intended to move an amendment to that effect.

Mr J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo) said he regretted promoters of the Bill had not prepared a manual before coming before the House. Had they done so bo thought they would have eliminated a great deal of sectarian bitterness from this question. He at one timo favoured 'giving the Bill a second reading, but after studying the evidence given before the Education Committee, he had decided he could not support the second reading on this occasion.

Objections to Nelson System. Mr Girling (Wairau) strongly supported the Bill, as he had done at last election, because ho did not favour a "Godless" system of education. The Nelson' System was excellent so far as it went, but it could not cover tho whole country, because there were not sufficient clergy to do it. He saw no reason why a text book should not be drawn up compatible with both Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, [for there was much that was common to both. He' did not object to an amendment permitting the Nelson System as an alternative.

Mr Lysnar (Gisborne) said.the Bill had his entire support. It could do no possible harm, but it could do a great deal of good. He could not understand the'objection ,to the Bill.- Half a loaf was better than no bread.

Notice of Amendments. Discussion was proceeding at the 5.30 adjournment, when amendments to be moved in committee by the promoter of the Bill were circulated as follows: Clause 3, Sub-Clause (1) paragraph (c), ,to omit the word "grammatical" in line 5, and substitute the word "verbal."

Clause 6, to omit this Clause, and substitute the following : "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing provisions of this Act, the School Committee, or other controlling authority of any school to which this Act applies may at any time authorise the conduct of the religious exercises at that school, in accordance with the system commonly known as the Nelson System, and it shall not be necessary in connexion with that school to perform any religious exercises in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act at any time while the Nelson System is effectively in operation therein." Continuing after tho dinner adjournment, Mr Lysnar said there was no logic in the Eoman Catholic claims, and he hoped tho Bill would -be carried.

Aid for Catholic Schools? Sir Armstrong (Christchurdh East) said that the demand for State aid to, denominational schools would become unanswerable,if became law. He dwelt' upon the difficulties of giving effect to the Bill from the,point of view jof scholars and teachers.' He contend- ! Ed that the proposed manual of lessons should have been prepared, and submitted to the House. Then the House would have known what it was voting for.

Mr Potter (Roskill) declared he would support the amendment moved by Mr Atmore. He was in favour of religious instruction being given to children, but he did not believe in leaving the issue, as proposed by Mr Holland's amendment, $o be ".settled by School Committees, who were elected by the people, for if the Bill were passed those elections would be swayed by sectarian influences, and not b,y educational principles. Mr Sykes (Masterton) declared in favour of religious instruction in schools. He was confident that the Nelson System could not be operated in the backblocks, because the clergy were not there to do it. If the Bill passed the dangers predicted would vanish like the mists.

Mr Sullivan's Objections. Mr Sullivan (Avon) said the question at issue was whether the State had a right to force upon certain people a form of religion to which they objected. The Bill would inflict injustice on three classes of people—the taxpayers, the teachers, and a section of the children. It would be unfair to the agnostic who denied the existonce of a personal God. It would be unfair to punish , people who denied the divinity of Christ. It would be unfair to the Roman Catholics, who could not accept any form of emasculated Christianity, which to them was heresy. They denied the right of private interpretation of the Scriptures. The whole point of the Bill was private interpretation, and therefore it could not he accepted by the Boman Catholic Church. These three sections of the people would thus be told to pay for something in which they did not believe, and from which they derived no benefit. The Nelson System was quite a different matter. It was voluntary, and was carried on outside school hours, and no one could object to it.

Mr Harris (Waitemata) said a plebiscite had been taken among parents of children attending State schools, and 81 per cent, had voted in favour of religious exercises in schools. The first question was the welfare of the children, and his personal opinion was that there was not a single member of the House who honestly believed that the Bill would do any harm to children. Mr Horn (Wakatipu) said he was afraid that if they carried this Bill they would be endangering the present national system of education. So long as they had denominational schools in Scotland there was strife among the scholars attending them, and it was only when State schools were established that the religious difficulties disappeared among children. The Hon. Mr Nosworthy said he would support the Bill, because it would remove a great blot which now disfigured our national system of education. That blot was the absence of the name of Jesus Christ. The names of Kings and great warriors were taught to the children, but there was no mention, of