PASSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 93, 20 April 1932, Page 9

PASSED.

EMERGENCY LAW. PUBLIC SAFETY BILL. OPPOSED BY LABOUR. DISCUSSION ON RIOTS. ATTEMPT TO BLAME GOVERNMENT. (By TeleS ril l'h- — Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Sitting until 5.10 this morning the House of Representatives passed without amendment the Public Safety Conservation Bill which was introduced the previous afternoon. The debate on the second reading lasted from 3.15 p.m. until 1.15 a.m., and the committee stage was not completed until 4.50 a.m. Opposing the measure throughout, the Labour party challenged various clauses, but these were retained by overwhelming majorities. Continuing the second reading debate, after the "Star" went to Press yesterday, Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) considered that the trouble which had developed could not be controlled by batons, but by an intelligent policy of organising the moral forces and not the martial forces of the State. There was no premeditation in the Auckland trouble. He suggested that under the bill it would be possible for the Government to proclaim a virtual dictatorship. He would not say the Government would abuse the power it was seeking, but it must not ignore the situation and refuse to take proper, remedial measures. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) said the use of batons wielded by a crude and incapable body called special constables was not going to deal with the situation. It was not a question of batoning men back to their job 9, but to empty homes with little food and clothing for the coming winter. Any legislation designed to break down the safety valve of democracy whereby people could peacefully assemble and pass resolution's was dangerous. The Labour party wanted sustenance in money, not in relief depots. The party stood for law and order, and appealed to the Government not to further break the law by withholding sustenance pay- , nients.

Policy of Government. In the opinion of Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour, Roskill) constituted authority had already sufficient power to deal with the situation. It was moonshine to talk about agitators causing discontent; the fact was that the people of Auckland generally—people who were known as Reform supporters even— would not stand for the Coalition's policy. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs) said there was no justification for providing that men could be convicted on any sort of evidence, as stipulated in the bill. . It would make the police absolute dictators, a provision that was intolerable. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) said the Labour party desired to see law and order preserved. He asked the Prime Minister whether the Auckland police would receive additional payment for the long hours they had worked. He challenged the right of Mr. Forbes to remain in office and put into operation a policy of which the majority of the people obviously disapproved. "Silly Challenges." Mr. W. J. Poison (Coalition Independent, Stratford) said that the unemployed were plainly not responsible for the outbreak in Auckland. He could not understand the attitude adopted by Mr. Jordan. They received silly challenges from the Labour party for the Prime Minister to go and face the mob —a jury of law-breakers to try a lawmaker. Nothing could be more ludicrous.

Mr. F. W. Schramm (Labour, Auckland East) said that in the bill he saw a danger of. the Government's political opponents being imprisoned. The bill waived a number of 01-established legal ' rights, and in the hands of a despotic Government it might be unjustly administered. Mr.R. A. Wright (Coalition, Wellington Suburbs) vigorously denied that I the Government was responsible for the trouble, and insisted it was necessary that the bill be passed in the interests of law and order. It was not panic legislation and it was not loaded against the defendants, since anybody appearing before the Court would get justice. Without force it was impossible to control the unlawful element in the community. Use of "Specials." There was some discussion by Labour members during the committee stage on the activities of special constables and the use by them of batons. Mr. Forbes indicated that the "specials" v.-ould be under the control of the police, and be called upon only if a situation got out of hand. By 40 votes to 21 the main operative clause was retained, and somewhat similar voting rejected a proposal by Mr. Mason to delete the provision that for any prosecution under the regulations the Court may admit such evidence as it thinks fit, whether it would be admissablc or not in other proceedings. Mr. Forbes said it was a necessary clause, to enable a wider circle of evidence to be taken. In a mix-up it might be difficult to obtain the ordinary evidence which was required. Defending the clause giving indemnity to those operating under the Act, Mr. Forbes said it was'necessary that special constables and others should have such protection. The clause was retained by 37 votes to 21, and on the final division the third reading was approved by the same majority. The House adjourned until 2.30 p.m.