PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 124, 18 February 1933, Page 12

PARLIAMENT

Members Tired Out SALES TAX DEBATE Long Sitting Continued MINOR CHANGES IN BILL (By Our Parliamentary Representative) Scenes rivalling in intensity those which marked the stormy days of the controversial legislation of almost a year ago, occurred during the Committee stages of the Sales Tax Bill in the House of Representatives yesterday. An exhausted and very much depleted House had been sitting continuously for nearly 36 hours at midnight, nearly 24 hours being spent in Committee with tempers decidedly frayed and speakers bringing less application to the work as time passed. , The Government applied the closure four times up to midnight. , It was used to end the second reading debate, again to put a stop to a long discussion on the short title when It-became perfectly clear that the Labour Party was intent on systematic obstruction, and a third time just before breakfast. It was not until 4.30 yesterday morning that the. closure put an abrupt end to the short title wrangle, but this evidence of the Government’s intention to force some slight headway immediately incensed the Labour Party.

By adopting the old stonewalling device of moving that the Chairman of Committees should leave the chair, the Opposition made nice use of the forms of the House to reopen the floodgates of talk, and as effectively blocked all work on the’Bill for an hour and a half. The closure ended this period of pointless exchanges, but clause two had not been passed by breakfast. Many members were fondly hoping to' get away for the week-end. . But the Prime Minister then decided to grant no leniency in view of the wasted hours and to keep the House at work until probably midnight to-night.

All day and most of Mie night was required to reach clause 1, which provides for the addition to or withdrawal of items from the sales tax exemption list by Order-iri-Council, and it was on this that several fatigued members indulged in some very bitter exchanges in which references to political patronage were prominent. However, the trouble was smoothed over by Mr. Coates promising to amend the clause to enable the House to discuss changes in the list each year. The next clause defining the sales value of goods was held over for redrafting, but it needed the closure io get past the following one. 1 Another all-night sitting was in prospect early this morning. NIGHT AND DAY Sales Tax Stonewall LEVITY AND BOREDOM Scenes in Early Morning ' “ C / • OBSTRUCTION TACTICS Checked after a four-hour discussion on the short title by the application of the closure, the Labour Party retaliated by holding up progress on the Sales Tax Bill in the House in the early hours of yesterday morning by resorting to stonewalling tactics for an hilarious hour and a half. The Bill had been read a second time by 44 votes to 26 as “The Dominion” went to press yesterday. The House then went into committee, and for four hours Labour members devoted themselves to ten-minute speeches on the short title. It rapidly became apparent that deliberate obstruction was being indulged in, but Labour speakers droned on, talking for hours on end to about 25 sleeping members and at times to no more than six who were awake. A definite move to hasten progress was made shortly after 4 a.m., when the Minister in charge of the Bill, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, moved the closure, which was carried by 39 votes to 23. The division on the short title followed, resulting in a Government win by a similar margin. The Labour Party was then immediately given its lead by Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central), who moved “That the Chairman do now leave the chair," a common prelude to undisguised stonewalling. Rights Being Flouted. With much earnestness, Mr. Fraser said the committee could not apparently discuss the Bill properly unless the Chairman did retire. Members’ rights were being flouted, and it was obviously impossible for members to discuss the measure until they had refreshed themselves with rest. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) was indignant because he said he had not been given the chance of speaking on the short title. “Am I to be asked to sit down before I open my mouth?” he asked when the Chairman reminded him that the short title could not now be referred to. The Chairman of Committees (Mr. S. G. Smith) : If you had risen in your place you would have been called. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) : We are in gaol at present. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Suburbs) said in serious tones that he thought the progress was far too speedy, and that members could not possibly keep up with the pace. Mr. Fraser: It is cyclonic. Mr. A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) was greeted with loud laughter when he complained that he had not had a chance of talking during the four hours on the short title. Member Taken to Task. The chairman said members were only within their rights in discussing

the motion that he leave the chair. Mr. Richards apparently misunderstood the position. Mr. Richards: Oh, no I don’t. You might think I do. I am devoting my speech to the question. The Chairman: I have not recognised it so far. , ~, Mr. Richards: I am not responsible for that, Sir. (Loud laughter.) Taken to task for his levity, Mr. Richards observed that he felt more strongly than ever that the Chairman should leave the chair, adding that as a new member he felt he had a set of chains round him and that his liberties had all been taken from him. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) was indignant because the closure had been applied after “only 12 hours on the Bill,” but he got no sympathy, being greeted with Government cries of “Too long, too long.” He then launched an attack on the chairman for applying the closure, and .this brought a sharp rebuke. “The honourable member must not go any further," said Mr. Smith. “He has been here long enough to know that the chairman did not apply the closure. The committee does that.” Mr. Wright Joins In. The Labour obstructionists found an ally in Mr. R. A. Wright (Govt., Wei. lington Suburbs),' who thought a good night’s work had been done, and that no one could discuss the Bill intelligently after being reduced to a state of exhaustion. The Minister in charge of the. Bill, the Prime Minister and everyone else was worn out.

Speaking above the squeaking of carpet sweepers from the corridors, Mr. J. O’Brien (Lab., Westland) offered as a reason for an adjournment the fact that no one, and not even the Minister, seemed to understand the Bill. He thought a little time to study its contents would be welcome and advantageous. Then they had to consider the chairman’s health. He would oe all the better for a sleep. Mr. Smith ruled out any references Io the chairman’s health, but Mr. F. Jones (Lab.,'Dunedin South) continued to be solicitous, remarking with mock simplicity that it must be a source of real gratification for the chairman to know that members were so keenly interested in his welfare.

To prevent monotony, Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) came out as an opponent of Labour’s case, saying he was not convinced that the chairman should retire. As for Mr. Smith’s health, he was sure that he would see the debate through to the bitter end. Then again, everyone wanted to see business speeded up, and the session ended. (Derisive laughter.) Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) was concerned about Mr. Parry’s state of mind, brushing his argument aside on the ground that he had hypnotised himself into the belief that the House should sit on. “We are getting into a doddery state,” Mr. Langstone confessed. “I am feeling irritable myself, and it would not take much to make me bite a bit off somebody.” Mr. E. T. Tirikatene (Ind.,, Southern Maori) thought it would be a good idea to adjourn, for in that event the session might run on a little longer, and messengers in the building might get another week’s wages. “I think we could legislate better it we were clean shaven,” remarked Mr. J. A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn), who expressed concern because the House was becoming a little "rafferty.” Mr. Wright re-entered the argument by stating it was impossible for the majority of members who had beer, asleep all night to vote intelligently on the Bill. This method of doing business was making the electors lose faith in Parliament. Scrubbing brushes were being applied with vim outside the doors as Mr. D. W. Coleman (Lab., Gisborne) waved his hand to draw attention to the recumbent forms of members who had fallen asleep i % spite of the running fire of comment and frequent loud laughter. Compliments Exchanged. Tiring of tl;e comedy, Mr. C. H. Clink-, ard (Govt., Rotorua) made an effort to apply the closure, but the chairman would not accept the motion. Mr. Semple turned to Mr. Clinkard. “The old sea lion,” he remarked. “Get back to your mud-hole.” The Chairman: Order! Order! There is far too much levity. Mr. J. McCombs (Ind., Lyttelton) introduced a new argument.for the adjournment. The members should be allowed to go at least until the charwomen had cleaned out the chamber, he said. Members: Hear, hear. Put out the lights. A Labour member who had gone to the strangers’ seats at the back of the chamber indulged in a long and loud yawn as Mr. McCombs turned with mock indignation to the Hansard reporters who, he declared, were too tired to take notes, and who had stopped working in spite of the fact that they had been ordered to report the committee work. “I think in any case we should adjourn just to let members read the morning paper,” Mr. McCombs added, “or at least just long enough to let them run through the correspondence columns." The chairman, objecting to repetition, called for new arguments, so Mr. O’Brien called attention to the stuffy atmosphere. This induced a messenger to open windows. , More references to charwomen being prevented from doing their work resulted in the chairman ruling out all reference to them as irrelevant. Disturbing Noises. Mr. O’Brien was apparently upset because of the' sounds of cleaning from without, and he spent some time complaining about people who were not really interested running about the building. He also took exception to "somnambulists in the chamber talking in their sleep.” remarking that if they did not recuperate soon they would need a doctor from the asylum to examine every member. An attempt was made by • Mr. A. J. Murdoch, senior Government whip, to have the closure applied, but the chairman would not agree, saying, however, that he would have to demand relevant arguments. The end o 1 the obstruction on this question came soon after, the Hon. J. G. Cobbe moving the closure, which was put and carried by 41 votes to 24. The motion that the chairman leave the chair was defeated by a similar majority, and the House turned its attention to clause two. This was merely an interpretative one, but the Labour obstructionists were sufficiently ingenious to' keep discussion on it going until the breakfast adjournment at 7.30 a.m. COMPENSATION ACT Notification to Workers A recommendation that it be made compulsory for all employers to exhibit in prominent positions at their works notices informing employees of the limitations of the Workers’ Compensation Act for lodgments of claims in respect to injuries was contained in a report by the Public Petitions A to L. Committee presented to the House of Representatives. The report concerned the petition <>f Mr. .7. W. Garner, of Wellington, who petitioned Parliament for compassionate allowance or other relief in respect of injuries received while employed by the Railway Department. The committee expressed the opinion that the petition should be referred to the Government for most favourable consideration.

WORDS & PHRASES

Long Talk on Sales Tax Goes On SECURITY PROVISION Many inconsequential arguments about words and phrase’s and petty disputes with the chair were the principal devices that the Labour Party used yesterday to prolong the already wearisome debate on the Sales Tax Bill in the House of Representatives. There were several minor brushes with the chair during the morning and afternoon, Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East), being principally concerned. Mr. Armstrong, incidentally, supported by several of his colleagues, held up the debate on clause 5 for over an hour with criticism of the definition of the term, “manufacturing retailer.” Mr. Armstrong declared that this term would include a small boy who made a wheelbarrow and sold it, and he refused to listen to the Minister's explanations.

•*I am not going to support something 1 don’t understand,” he declared, when the chairman suggested that he should think of another argument. Mr. Coates: I can’t give you understanding. Mr. ■ Armstrong: But why don’t you explain it? Mr. Coates: I have been trying to explain it for the last 24 hours. Mr. Armstrong then offered to sit down while a further explanation was given. “Perhaps the honourable gentleman would understand the clause if it proposed to license bookmakers.” commented Mr. Coates!

• Mr. Armstrong: You wouldn’t license them, but you’d license every other thief in New Zealand. The debate dragged on to the tea adjournment without any change in the Opposition tactics. , ■ Movable Property. Two and a half hours were occupied in discussion on the interpretation clause, the second in the Bill. Amplified explanations of many of the definitions were sought by Labour members, and in reply to- a question as to the meaning of movable property, Mr. Coates said it was not intended that live stock should be subject,to the sales tax. Neither would the tax be paid on sales of land or houses. Movable goods would be affected by the Shortly after the committee resumed after breakfast the Minister of Lands, Hon. E. A. Ransom, temporarily took charge of the Bill, Mr. Coates leaving the chamber to hear some representations in connection with the measure. The absence of Mr. Coates was commented upon by Mr. R. A. Wright (Govt., Wellington Sub urbs), who said that Mr. Ransom could not be expected to take tin the running at a moment’s notice. Mr. Ransom was unable to make any promise, and they were simply beating the air. “We are told this is an emergency tax,” said Mr. Wright, “but I say it will be permanent so far as most members of this House are concerned. In any case there will be a sales tax so' long as we have the high exchange, and it can be taken that that will be for all time ” Clause two was agreed to by 39 votes to 22, and at 10.45 a.m. the committee proceeded to discuss the next clause, which provides for the administration of the measure by the Customs Department. The clause was adopted by 44 votes to 21. At the request of Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) Mr. Coates agreed to amend clause five so as to obviate the necessity of securities being given by people making application for a license to carry on business as a wholesaler or manufacturing retailer. In asking the Minister to delete from the clause the reference to securities, Mr. Wilkinson said the Government was imposing a restriction on perhaps a hardworking young man who was' anxious to start business, but might find it difficult to procure the necessary security. Business Difficulties. Mr. Wilkinson failed to see why it should be necessary to find any security of an unknown amount. Had he been asked to find a security of £lOO or £2OO when he himself commenced business ne would have been unable to do so. He had sympathy with anyone who wanted to start in business, and he would like to see such people helped rather than restricted. The imposition of a security of an unknown amount was contrary to the spirit of business to-day. Mr. Coates said he was prepared to delete that part of the clause referring to securities. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) : That will be helpful. Labour members 'considered that even in its amended form the clause should be struck out altogether, as the licensing of wholesalers or manufacturing retailers and the payment of a license fee of £1 would place an unnecessary restriction on personal enterprise. Mr. R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) said a restriction would be placed on men and women anxious to do something for themselves. Such people should be encouraged. By requiring licenses the Government was placing a shackle on all individual effort. It was when a man commenced business that he needed encouragement rather than embarrassment.. When the luncheon adjournment was taken at one o’clock clause five was still under consideration, and twentyminutes after resuming an hour and a half later the committee agreed to the clause in its amended form, no division being called for. Considerable exception was taken by Opposition members to the clause providing for penalties of £lOO for the unlicensed selling or manufacturing of goods or the carrying on of business at places other than those authorised in the license. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, suggested that if such a' penalty were to be imposed it should apply only to the offence of failing to take out a license. The clause was carried on the voices. By 43 votes to 25 the clause providing for the surrender, amendment or revocation of licenses was adopted. Ton clauses had been passed vlien the committee adjourned for tea at <5.35 yesterday afternoon. FARM COTTAGES Cost of Construction Details of cottages built in connection witli the small farm plan were contained in a return tabled in the House of Represensatives on the motion of Mr. A. S. S Richards (Lab., Roskill). The number of cottages built by the Government at the Otahuhu and Fanshawe Street factories for the 10-acre farm scheme to November 30, 1932, totalled 185. Cottages placed on 10-acre farms totalled 161, and the cost of construction and erection of such cottages was £27,252/16/7. The information in the return relates to work under sharemilking agreements as well as to the small farm plan itself.

HEATED PASSAGES

Lively Scene in House

TALK OF PATRONAGE Exemptions and Titles METHODS OF EXEMPTION Allegations that the clause in the Sales Tax Bill providing for additions to or withdrawals from the list of exempted goods would lead to political patronage, led to some exceptionally heated exchanges in the House of Representatives last evening. Those directly concerned in the argument were the Minister of Customs, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Mr. R. A. Wright (Govt., Wellington Suburbs), the Minister of Justice, Hon. J. G. Cobbe, and Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central). After the supper adjournment Mr. Coates announced he would amend the clause to provide that any Order-in-Council dealing with exemptions should be placet! before Parliament within 14 days of its meeting, and be discussed later in the session. The suggestion was made by Mr. J. A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn), that someone going out to collect party funds might have pressure brought to bear on him to have exemptions made. He did not say that would happen with the present Government, but he wanted to point out the danger of such a clause. Joining in the Labour protests, Mr. Wright said the clause was similar to some opposed by the late Mr. Massey when he was in opposition. It was dangerous and vicious in the extreme. Only a perfect Minister, an immaculate man, could stand up to the pressure that would be brought to bear, and Mr. Wright did not believe that the perfect Minister existed. “Suppose a friend of the Minister came along, a strong political supporter, as they do,” continued Mr. Wright. “Suppose he says t° the Minister: It is time you did something for me. A Minister would have to be a strong man to refuse to do that.” Mr. Coates: Do what? Mr. Wright: To say to that man he would not help him. Mr. Coates: We don’t do that sort of thing, and you know it. Mr. Wright: I don’t know it. You had better be careful. Mr. Coates: I challenge you or anyone else to say that we favour any of our political supporters. "Better Be Careful.” Mr. Wright: You had better be careful. I don’t want to tell tales out of school. Mr. Coates: You chatter like an old lady. Mr. Wright: I am not such an old lady as the Minister. Several Labour members, led by Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino), greeted Mr. Wright’s retort with a burst of hand-cla-pping, and there was a general atmosphere of excitement, which prevented Mr. Wright resuming his speech for a minute or so. Continuing, Mr. Wright alleged that such a clause opened the way to political patronage. No safeguard was provided. Electors were always afraid of that sort of thing—of a Government giving favours to its friends. "While I am making no charge against the Minister, I say he would have to be a perfect man to withstand that,” said Mr. Wright. “Power should not be given to any Minister to exercise patronage in this way" if he wants to do so. Even if he does not, this clause still leaves him open to that charge. If the Minister could only see it, it is a dangerous clause for himself.” Should Go Further. “I think the Minister will now realise this is a most dangerous clause,” said Mr. Fraser, who followed Mr. Wright. “The Member for Wellington Suburbs should go further. He said he did not want to tell tales out of school. I suggest he should take the whole public into his confidence, for he has created an impression that the years will not eradicate. It is commonly rumoured that one prominent political organiser has been going round, trying to set up a traffic in titles and J.P.-ships.” The Chairman of Committees, Mr. S. G. Smith, said a member should not make charges of that sort unless he were prepared to substantiate them. A Labour Voice: What about Farming First and the oil companies? Mr. Fraser said he had made no charge against a member of the House. If charges and counter-charges were not going to be a distasteful feature of Parliament such a clause as that proposed should not be proceeded with. Regulations of exemptions should be placed on the table of the House within seven days of the opening of the session so taht members could discuss the question. “Scandalous Statement.” “That is a statement of a most scandalous character,” declared the Minister of Justice, Mr. Cobbe, in replying to Mr. Fraser’s reference to traffic in J.P.-ships. “It is a statement that should not be made in any decent gathering. I have never made any appointment of justices of the peace except on the recommendation of a member of this House.” Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Govt., Riccarton): Wrong 1 Mr. Cobbe: There have been two or three appointments on the recommendation of heads of departments, such as the Public Trustee, who wanted one or two of his managers appointed. Any man who makes such statements would, in my opinion, do what he alleges others are doing if he had the chance. Mr. Fraser: The Minister was never in my mind. Mr. Cobbe: But I have to deal with justices of the peace. Mr. Fraser: You shouldn’t have rushed madly into it like you did. I said the rumour was that a political organiser tried to set up a traffic in J.P.-ships, and I say that on the authority of a late colleague of the Minister. Mr. Cobbe: Do you believe it? Mr. Fraser: I don’t know whether to or not. Tlte chairman had made frequent calls for order during the progress of these exchanges, but it was some time before he could be heard above the exciting din. Mr. Smith insisted that members should respect the orders of the chair. t Speaking on a point of order, Mr. Fraser said the Minister had reflected unwarrantably on him. “I have nothing but admiration for the Minister’s impartiality,” he said, "particularly in regard to the appointment of justices. I was dealing with a person outside this House. It was a statement made by way of illustration. There may have been no truth in it.” Rebuke for Mr. Wright. "I challenge the member for Wellington Suburbs to expose anything he saw

when he was a colleague of mine,” declared Mr. Coates when replying with some heat later in the debate to the statements of Mr. Wright. “He was a colleague for whom I had the greatest respect and affection. What has happened to him 1 do not know, but I say he should not be sitting where he is. He should not be eavesdropping as he has, and after his expressions this evening he has no right to be where he is condemning men who are having a rotten time and doing their best in the face of heavy head winds.

“I have the greatest respect for the member for Wellington Suburbs, but he should not talk behind his old colleagues’ backs and shove knives into them behind their backs. I say he has no right to say what ne has said to-night, and he knows it. I know that in his heart he does not think what he has said is true. I will let the matter rest at that.” A few minutes later Mr. Wright rose to defend his position. “The Minister has made a direct personal attack on me.’’ he said. “He says I have no right to sii i on this seat eavesdropping. I have never done such a thing, and I challenge him to quote any case where I have. The Speaker of this House and uot the ’ Minister arranges for the scats, and I have been informed that once a member is given a seat he can hold it in whatever part of the House it may be. No Charge Made. “Mr. Coates made another reference to me," continued Mr. Wright with some warmth. “I want to say to the Minister that I made no charge against him.” Mr. Coates: Very, near it. ‘I accept the honourable member’s word, but I took it that he was prepared to tell tales about the Government he was associated with,” continued the Minister. “I will accept it Mr. Wright: But you don’t believe it. The Chairman: The honourable gentleman must accept unreservedly. Mr. Coates: Well, I do, unreservedly. The clause left the way open for corruption, continued Mr. Wright. No Minister could say that his followers did not ask favours, and say that because they had supported his party for some years they expected to have his help. “I think favours have been given, in this House, and I want to talk now about the postponement of the liquor poll,” began Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino). The Chairman: Order. Mr. Langstone: The Government has got powers and it will use them. We are not going to fool ourselves with all the nice things the Minister has been talking about. They are there to keep in power, and they will stop there by hook or by crook. Mr. Coates: Not by crook. “Minister Could Go Hang.” There was a brief altercation between Mr. Coates and Mr. Langstone, which culminated in a remark that the Minister could go hang. This sally was greeted with loud applause. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, then moved an amendment to ths clause to remove from it Cabinet’s powers to grant or refuse exemptions. Mr. Coates: I should like to meet the Opposition, but I cannot admit this amendment, and I must ask the House to reject it. The Minister of Lands, the Hon. E. A. Ransom, who succeeded Mr. Coates in the chair temporarily, explained that if the power to grant or refuse exemptions by Order-in-Council was not given, grave injustices might be done to certain industries which could present unanswerable eases for exemptions, but which, if the amendment were carried, could not secure those amendments until Parliament met. “I greatly regret the desire shown by some members to' deprecate the Governments of this country,” continued Mr. Ransom. “During my career I have seen no evidence of corruption, and we should be particularly proud of our record and anxious to maintain it. Members should defend Parliament against such attacks instead of mak’ng them.” “I was interested to hear that the Minister of Lands knew of no case where the Government could bo charged with giving to its friends,” commented Mr. D. W. Coleman (Lab., Gisborne). “I remember the same gentleman charging the Reform Government with giving powers to its friends and placing even the names on record.” Mr. Ransom (heatedly): Tell the whole story, not half of it. CONFLICT OR VIEWS Member and Chairman Criticism by Mr. R. .Semple (Lab., Wellington East) of the clause in the Sales Tax Bill, which allows additions to or withdrawals from the list of exempted goods brought him into conflict with the Chairman of Committees, Mr. S. G. Smith, in the House of Representatives last evening. Mr. Semple said that the clause undermined the functions of self-government and that no one knew that better than the Minister of Customs, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates. With all his misgivings and shortcomings the Prime Minister would have more respect for the feelings of the people than to stand for such a clause. "I am not Prime Minister,” declared Mr. Coates with emphasis. Mr. Semple: I believe the Prime Minister is merely the shadow, and that you are the substance. The chairman: Order. Mr. Semple: If any one stings me I like to sting them back with compound interest. The Minister is the twin brother of this vicious clause. The chairman suggested to Mr. Semple that he withdraw the word vicious. Mr. Semple: I used the word vicious in referring to the clause. Those who support the clause are equally as vicious as it is. The clause undermines selfgovernment, and when we get up and discuss it all we get from the Minister is an empty chuckle. Mr. Coates: I smiled in a most friendly manner. Mr. C. L. Carr (Lab., Tiinaru) : With the face of a tiger.