HOW MEMBERS VOTED

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 112, 4 February 1933, Page 12

HOW MEMBERS VOTED

Labour Amendment Defeated TWO DIVISION LISTS By 47 votes to 31 the Labour Party’s amendment to refuse a second reading to the Banks Indemnity (Exchange) Bill was defeated in the Hous'e of Representatives early yesterday morning, the division being taken at 5 o’clock, after an allnight sitting. Nearly two hours later a division was reached on the second reading, which was agreed to by 43 votes to 35. The voting on the amendment was as follows: — For the amendment (31): Armstrong Munro Atmore W. Nash Barnard O’Brien \ Carr Parry Chapman Richards Coleman Rushworth Fraser Savage Harris Schramm H. E. Holland Semple Howard Stallworthy •Jones Sullivan Langstonc ' Tirikatene Lee Veitch McCombs Wilkinson McKeen Wright Mason Against the amendment (47) : Ansell Kyle Bitchener Linklater Bodkin Lye Broadfoot McDougall . Burnett McLeod Campbell McSkimming Clinkard Macmillan . Coates Macpherson Cobbe i J. N. Massey Connolly W. W. Massey de la Perrelle Murdoch Dickie • J. A Nash Endean Ngata Field Polson Forbes Ransom Hnmilton- Reid Hargest Samuel Hawke Smith Healy' Stewart Henare ' ' Sykes H. Holland . Te Tomo Holypake Williams Jull Young The division on the second reading resulted as follows: — For the motion (43) : — Ansell Kyle Bitchener Linklather Broadfoot Lye Burnett McLeod Campbell Macmillan Clinkard Macpherson Coates J. 'N. Massey Cobbe ' W. W. Massey Connolly Murdoch de la Perrelle J. A. Nash Dickie Ngata Endean Polson Field Ransom Forbes Reid Hnmilton Samuel Hargest Smith Hawke Stuart Healy Sykes Henare < Te Tomo H. Holland Williams Holyoake Young .Tull Against the motion (35) : — Armstrong Mason Atmore Munro Barnard W. Nash Bodkin O’Brien Carr Parry Chapman Richards Coleman Rushworth Fraser . Savage . Harris Schramm H. E. Holland Semple Howard Stallworthy Jones Stewart Langstone Sullivan Lee Tirikatene McCombs Veitch, McDougall Wilkinson McKeen Wright McSkimming Mr. R, A. Wright (Govt., Wellington Suburbs) moved an amendment to postpone the operation of the Bill for twelve months. A division was called for, the amendment being defeated by 43 votes to 26. An amendment that the Act expire not ■ later than January 1, 1934, which was moved by Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Lab, Avon) was Jost by 43 votes to 29. MEMBER WALKS OUT Use of Word “Theft” REFUSAL TO WITHDRAW A mild stir was ■caused in the House of Representatives yesterday morning when Mr. W.E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) walked out of the chamber rather than withdraw a charge that the Government was guilty of “contemptible theft” in guaranteeing the banks against exchange losses in that the money would be taken from the poorer sections of the community to pay those who needed it less. Nearly an hour was spent in discussing the implication of the words, the House finally deciding to take no action after hearing Mr. Parry’s explanation. The House was in committee on the Banks Indemnity (Exchange) Bill when the incident occurred, and as soon as Mr. Parry made his charge he was called upon to withdraw the words by the Chairman of Committees, Mr. S. G. Smith. “I want to say quite frankly,” Mr. Parry said, “and it is not out of disrespect for the chair, but this case is so——— ” The chairman again asked that the words he withdrawn. Mr. Parry: I absolutely refuse to withdraw. I say it is theft by the Government that is imposing a levy on .the struggling people to give it to a man with £106.000 in 1928. Question of a “Bonus.” ' Mr. Speaker was sent for and after the incident had been reported by the Chairman 1 of Committees, the Minister of Finance, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, said he understood Mr. Parry to say that he refused to vote for any legislation which would give a “bonus” to a man who received an income of £106,000 in 1928, and who would benefit at the expense of people in distress. lie thought Mr. Parry was,undcr a misapprehension in suggesting that exporters would receive a subsidy. It was quite possible that not one person in the electorate of Auckland Central referred to by Mr. Parry would contribute anything as the result of the higher exchange. Time only would reveal the position. There would be no loss of dignity if Mr. Parry acknowledged that he had spoken under a misapprehension. Mr. Parry said he stood by his statement and would not withdraw because he believed his statement to be true. In saying that he did not wish to cast any reflection on the chair or show any disrespect. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) said Mr. Parry had not made any reference whatever to the Government in his original statement. The chairman had asked him whether he imputed that the Go- I vernmeut was guilty of theft, and he re-1

plied that he did, but this was a leading question. Mr. Smith said he had given Mr. Parry several chances to withdraw and he had specifically asked him whether he referred to the Government, receiving the reply that the statement was directed against the Government. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, said Mr. Parry was making a case against the legislation, and bis original remarks were not directed against the Government. He merely said that if the legislation were approved it would amount to theft. Authority of House. After considerable argument, Mr. Speaker said he had to rule that the words were undoubtedly un-Parliamentary. He said private members had their rights, and these had to be guarded, but at the same time the authority of the House had to be upheld. If a speaker said that a Government was robbing the widows and orphans, such an expression did not necessarily amount to a breach. Theft was technically defined as meaning the appropriation of a thing with the intention of permanently depriving its owner oi possession. It appeared there may have been a misunderstanding on this occasion. Mr. Parry said he had remarked that a man had received an income of £106,000 in 1928, but that not One penny of this had been paid in taxation. There were thousands of women and children in his district in dire distress, and he had said that if money was to be taken from these people to help a person with such an income, it amounted to theft. He had gone further and said contemptible theft. Mr. Coates said Mr. Parry evidently thought the poor people in his district were to be made to subsidise this man. Labour Chorus: So they are. The Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, said that although he was not iu the House at the time, it appeared that there was no direct reference to the Government in Mr. Parry’s first remark. He did not think Mr. Parry intended to charge the Government with straightout theft, although in his opinion it might have been guilty of an inexcusable act. Mr. Parry: Surely the Prime Minister does not believe that he personally would be responsible for thieving from children. But the effect of the legislation is to thieve from them. As Mr. Parry refused to withdraw when again requested by Mr. Speaker,, he then retired from the chamber. There was further argument, after he had gone, and on Mr. Speaker’s suggestion the Prime Minister moved that the House express its regret that Mr. Parry had not withdrawn tlie remark, but that after hearing the explanation no further action be taken, in view of* the fact that nothing dishonourable had been imputed. This motion was carried, one or two Labour members dissenting. LEAKAGE OF NEWS Increase in Exchange Rate Reference to a leakage of news about the Government’s plans to increase the exchange rate was made by Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central), when lie suggested that some firms had been able to take advantage of the premature announcements. “I can assure Mr. Fraser that ns far as Cabinet and the banks were concerned, no information as far ns we know leaked out,” replied the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes. “There are ways, of course, in which information can leak’ out. Shots were made by some of the newspapers. Sometimes there are pretty good guessers among the Press,” admitted Mr. Forbes, repeating his assurance that the whole matter was strictly confidential between the banks and the Government. LONDON FUNDS Purchase by the Banks Information as to the amount of surplus funds held in London by the banks immediately prior to the advance in the rate of exchange was sought by several Labour members during the committee stages on the Banks Indemnity (Exchange) Bill in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) contended that on account of the Government s legislation the surplus funds held by the banks in London, which had been bought at a 10 per cent, premium, would overnight be sold for a 25 per cent, premium. 'The exchange would be bought at the higher price by British exporters, and so ultimately the banks’ profits would come from the pockets of the consuming public of New Zealand. The Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, explained that the purpose of the Bill was to enable the Government to buy surplus funds after January 20, and that the position of London funds before that

date did not come within its scope. The Minister of Employment, Hon. A. Hamilton, declared that any profits that the banks might have made on account of the increased rate came within the scope of their ordinary trading, and would, in any case, have to be set off against losses which they might incur in the future when the rate was reduced. In his reply to the third reading debate, the Minister of Finance, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, declared that to make a profit on the surplus funds which they held in London on January 19 the banks would have to sell not only those funds but the funds subsequently bought by them at a 25 per cent, premium. In other words, the sum held by the banks in London was to be deducted from the accumulated sura guaranteed by the Governmen.