OPPOSED BY LABOUR

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 51, Issue 143, 30 March 1931, Page 3

OPPOSED BY LABOUR

INTRODUCTION OF CLOSURE.

DAY'S BEBATE IN THE HOUSE.

ADJOURNMENT AT MIDNIGHT

(Abridged from Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 28.

When the House of Representatives met this morning, Mr McCombs raised points of order relating to the Prime Minister's motion to amend the Standing Orders to provide for the introduction of the closure, and said that he did not think that adequate notice had been given. He pointed out that in 1882 Mr Gladstone, in similar circumstances, gave nearly a week's notice. Sir Apirana Ngata submitted that the House could not interfere with its own instruction. The Speaker said the point raised by Mr McCombs should have been submitted the previous evening, when the House decided to make the Prime Minister's motion the first order of business for to-day. He added that in the old Standing Orders there had been safeguards relating to notice, but when these were under review it had been found that it was the practice to suspend the Standing Order containing such safeguards, / and for that reason it was not included' in the new Standing Orders.

"Not Customary." Replying to a further point raised by Mr McCoinbs, the Speaker said that it was not customary for a motion of that nature to be referred to a committee of the House. In moving his amendment, Mr Forbes said that when the whole Standing Orders had been revised by a committee prior to the 1929 session, consideration had been given to the effect of long hours on the health of members. It was then decided to fix the sitting hours at from 2.30 to 10.30 p.m. daily, and it was felt that if this were not workable some other means would have to be devised to enable the business to be put through. It had beep* hoped, with the assistance of members, that the new Standing Orders would be a success, but the House had now arrived at a position when the question of a motion to close the debate had to be considered.

Time for a Change. It must be recognised that the time was ripe and over-ripe for a change. Members had not been able to enter into the spirit of the new Standing Orders as the committee had hoped. Mr Forbes pointed out that all other Dominion Parliaments employed the principle of the closure. He freely admitted tha£ in the past he had taken part in debates which had prolonged the passage of legislation, but he had never taken part in such a procedure at a time like the present when the House was in an emergency session and when it was a case of fiddling while Rome was burning. The country could not afford the great expense of the House sitting day after day, in view of the urgent need; for economy. Mr Forbes expressed disappointment at the attitude of the Labour Party in connection with the carrying on of business. He asked what Labour would hay© done in his place. If he had not taken the action he proposed, he would have been criticised from end to end of New Zealand. Referring to the application of the closure, Mr Forbes said that much depended on the manner in which it was administered. He could assure members that so long as he was in charge it would be administered sympatheieally and with every endeavour to preserve the right of full discussion.

Labour Objections. Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) said that the Prime Minister had made very clear his reasons for moving the amendment. Mr Forbes never asked the Labour Party to meet him and discuss the position of New Zealand, and it was doubtful if [he had approached the Reform Party. If there had been a statesman ip Mr Forbes's position he would have invited representatives of other parties to meet/ him. Instead of that he proceeded to attack the standard of living of the workers. The Prime Minister should have made this the one session of the year and gone straight to the electors. Mr Forbes wished to introduce the closure, of the absence of which New Zealand was proud. He had suggested that the Labour Party had not carried on the business in an orderly manner. Mr Holland wished to point out that Labour's conduct had always been orderly and that all amendments had been specific and contained nothing trivial. "I can envision the day when the present Prime Minister will find the closure operating against himself and his party," Mr Holland said. "Then there will be a protest from him." The Leader of the Labour Party asked if Mr Forbes wanted to force wage-re-duction legislation through and prevent amendments being moved. Mr Forbes: The closure will be used with discretion.

Mr Holland: Whose discretion? Mr Forbes; Any member of the House can move the closure. Mr Holland appealed to Mr Forbes to adhere to the present Standing Orders. If he determined to sledgehammer his legislation through, this Government woujd go down to history as.the "gagster Government."

Need for Progress'. Mr Coates said he had always considered it impossible for any Government to get work done under the present Standing Orders. It seemed quite likelyi that the present session would last some months and he, for one, was not prepared to agree to such a course. He regretted that it was necessary to propose the introduction of the closure, but he was certain that Parliament would not make progress without it. There was no question about the urgency of the present session when it was realised that there was earthquake legislation to ho considered as well as the means of afiording relief for farmers. It was for the House to decide in what form it wanted the motion relating to the closure—whether it wanted all of it or part oi it.

Majority Rule. The Hon. \V. A. Veiteh said there had been indications that the opposition to the Finance Bill might even prevent a majority of the House having its way. Mr Holland had referred to the galleries being crowded with people interested in the debate on the Finance <Bill, but Mr Veiteh said lie feared that many of them had come to be amused, rather than interested. It- was necessary to prevent what appeared to be a "comedy on the surface from becoming a tragedy of wasteful expenditure. The House could not al-

low minor principles to submerge major principles. The ultimate purpose, of Parliament was to reach a decision by a majority vote. There was no desire on the part of the Government to prevent reasonable discussion, but it was determined to prevent the sacred right of free speech from being abused and to maintain respect for Parliament and the Constitution.

"Temporary Difficulty." Mr A. Harris (Reform, Waitemata), described the introduction of the closure as a refusal to recognise the lights of minorities. He looked forward to the future with the gravest possible concern if this motion were allowed to pass. Permanent amendment of the Standing Orders should not be made to enable the Government to get over a temporary difficulty. If the Government could not get legislation through under the present Standing Orders, it should get out. (Labour hear hears.)

Mr W. D. Lysnar (Independent, Gisborne) said he feared under the present circumstances that there was no alternative to "this extreme weapon." He believed, however, that there should be some safeguards as to its application. He thought that it might be a good thing if the Speaker were given discretionary powers. Mr J. T. Hogan (Independent, Rangitikei) said that he did net know how much further the Prime Minister proposed to drift away from' the principles of Liberalism, but he considered that the present was a very extreme step. The Government would leave itself open to the charge that it put its legislation on the Statute Book at the expense of silencing the minority.

Economic Drift. The Hon. E. A. Ransom declared that the session was for the purpose of legislating to stop economic drift. Conditions were so grave that the Government was justified in taking measures to prevent further waste of time. Parliament was called to pass emergency legislation to assist the producers, 'but in seventeen days nothing had been done. Unless the amendments were promptly made many of our farmers must go to the wall. He was daily reminded of this urgency in his work as Minister of Lands. The discussions so far had ignored the distressing conditions of manv thousands of unemployed. Many * employers were only waiting to see how far Parliament would assist them. Proceedings in the evening opened ominously with the circulation of five more Labour amendments to the motion while the first amendment, referring it to a committee, was under discussion. . Mr Coates (Leader of the Opposition) made a friendly effort to bring the deadlock to an end, submitting suggestions which he asked' the Prime Minister to consider and not deal with-im-mediately. He referred to an English Parliamentary authority who held that a closure motion must not be an abuse of the privileges of the House nor an infringement of the rights of minorities, and that the motion must be subject'to the discretion of the chair. This, he suggested, should be applied to the motion under debate. That it should be adopted ultimately he had no doubt, for it was essential that the Standing Orders should contain some form, of closure. He would also suggest that it would be unwise to confine the present proposal to the duration of this Parliament. '' ■ , Mr Mason (Auckland Suburbs): that is a Ned Kelly proposition. Other Labourites also , commented loudly, causing Mr Speaker to warn them that he would be. obliged to name some member for constant interruption.

AtJequate Safeguards. Mr D Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-burvj assured the House that Reform wished to provide adequate safeguards, reasonable proposals which the House could adopt without loss of dignity d it wished to get on with business. Mr Jordan (Labour, Manukauj: \ve don't want to.get on with this business. •"•«•+ Mr Jones: Labour's policy is ll it lias not sufficient grievances it loses caste with its own people. To agree with this would lose a grievance.

Drastic Mecicine. Mr W.J. Poison (Independent, Stratford; stated that a situation had arisen requiring drastic medicine. The majority must rule, and it never was a principle of Liberalism .to allow the rights of majorities to be over-ridden. Mr Seddon would never have tolerated the deliberate obstruction experienced during a whole Aveek. The country's situation demanded immediate action. Labour members seemed to hayo forgotten why the session had been called, though serious delay in legislating might easily create disaster. "It is unfair to swop horses when crossing a stream," concluded Mr Poison, "We must carry on and support the Government in getting its measures through." Mr Lysnar urged Labour to give the other parties a hand in a serious emergency. He could see the possibility of 20 speeches on each of the six amendments.

Mr Jordan: There are 10. , Mr Lvsnar: That makes it worse. It was, he said, very wrong to abuse privileges under present conditions, when every day meant further suffering for the farmers. At 11 p.m. the House divided on Mr Mason's amendment, which was negatived by 44 to 24, Messrs Harris, Wilkinson, Hogan and Black voting with Labour.

Another Amendment. Mr Langstone (Labour, Waimarino) moved an amendment designed to prevent the closure being applied while a member was speaking. He accused the Government of trying to assume the role of "little Mussolinis," and likened them to a football team which, when being defeated, wanted to change the rules to enable it to obtain all the freekicks.

Mr Sullivan: Yes, under the posts. Mr Langstone: J doubt whether they would be able to kick them oyer even then.

The debate was interrupted by the arrival of midnight. The House adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Monday.