Urgency on Budget

Press, 6 August 1976, Page 4

Urgency on Budget

PA Wellington The Government was believed to have set a precedent in Parliament last evening by ta2Xig urgency on the Budget debate after only three days of a debate which usually sees every member of the House either criticising or supporting the measure. Parliamentary historians said they could not recall urgency having been taken before in the Budget debate.

The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon), in moving urgency, said the Opposition had broken a Whips’ agreement. Th* House would sit beyond the usual time of 10.30 p.m. to allow progress to be made.

A division forced by the Opposition was won by the Government, 46-26.

Mr Rowling’s point of order was refected by Mr Muldoon as ‘•totally spurious.” The Opposition, he said, had breached an

agreement not to debate the bill past a certain time. The Government could not allow the introduction of the bill.

The introduction of such a bill would cut across New Zealand’s international obligation. “It is totally impossible for the Government to acquiesce in its introduction,” Mr Muldoon said.

The Chief Government Whip (Mr W. F. Birch) said he had received advice from the chief Opposition Whip (Mr R. P. D. Drayton) that the Opposition would not proceed in the agreed manner.

Ruling on Mr Rowling’s point of order, the Speaker said it came close to trifling with the Chair. The Government, he said, had taken urgency under Standing Orders and Standing Orders said that motion for urgency should stand without debate.

After the division, the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) rose to a point of order and said he wished to seek guidance from the Speaker (Sir Roy Jack) on the protection of the rights of private members.

Mr Rowling said that urgency had been taken on the ground that the Opposition had broken a custom in the House by continuing to debate a private member’s bill past the time agreed to by the Whips of both parties. Referring to the Nuclear-free Zone (New Zealand) Bill introduced by a Labour backbencher, Mr R. W. Prebble (Auckland Central), Mr Rowling said the Government intended to vote against the introduction of the bill.

“While I am not sure of precedent, it has been the custom in this House in the past to accord the right to a private member to have the bill introduced,” Mr Rowling said.