Limitation of Hours Discussed by House

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 732, 3 August 1929, Page 9

Limitation of Hours Discussed by House

COMMITTEES REPORT NEWSPAPER RUSTLING (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDG., Friday. The limitation of Parliamentary work to reasonable hours was discussed in the House of Representatives this evening, when the report suggesting important changes in the sitting hours of the House and restricting the length of debates was discussed. Substantial progress was made ia the approval of the proposals, including the new sitting hours, which are 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., and 7.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on Fridays. The Leader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. J. G.-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 would uot bo workable if the Government wished to put through much legislation in a session. Without the aid of the closure he did not think they could be practicable in a busy session. He did not consider half an hour was sufficient for a speaker in the Address-in-Reply debate. On the other hand, he was not in favour of the present practice of extending the present time of one hour. The Leader of the Labor ~ Party, Mr. H. E. Holland, emphasised the urgency of curtailing the sitting hour* 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 unlinkable 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 (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 giv..ig the proposals a trial to see how they worked out. The Minister of Lands, the Hon. G. 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 (Waitemata) said be could not see any objection to the circulation of newspapers in the House so long as the rustling of papedid not hamper the work, and that had never been the case. Mr. H. E. Holland said he thought a change ought to be made for the 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 no attention to tlie views he had to express. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said he thought members should be entitled to read editorial and correspondents* opinions, as expressed in the newspapers, as soon as thej' 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 be able to make himself acquainted with any such views on the subject, whether he agreed with them or not. He hoped that the recommendation to ban newspapers would not be adopted. The Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, said he had come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to drop the suggestion concerning newspapers. He thought there was very little in the objections raised to the limitation of time for the Addre3s-in-Reply speeches. It was mainly a matter of habit that had caused members to take a full hour for a speech on this subject. The Address-in-Reply debate as a rule served no important purpose beyond giving the Government an indication of the various members’ views. The discussion was adjourned until Tuesday afternoon.