SURPRISE MOVE

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 242, 9 July 1938, Page 12

SURPRISE MOVE

Second Amendment

In House

NO-CONFIDENCE IN PARTY SYSTEM

Government & Opposition Vote In Same Lobby

Complicated points of procedure arose in the House of Representa fives yesterday as the result of the movin'? of’ a second no-confidence aiueiidiuent to the formal mot iop for flic Address-in-Reply. Two divisions were taken in rapid succession. and the position now is that a plain amendment of no-confi-dence, without stated grounds, is before the House.

The original no-confidence amendment was moved a week ago by the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Adam Hamilton, stating that the Government had forfeited Ihe confidence of the House on seven specific points. Some surprise was caused yesterday afternoon when Mr. A. C. A. Sexton (Independent, Franklin) moved a further amendment of no-confidence designed j remove all the grounds advanced ny the Opposition and to replace them with the following:—

"That the Government lias made no legislative provision for the abolition of fixed political parties in this honourable House and for the taking of a free and impartial vote of the honourable members on all important matters the safety, honour, and welfare of this Dominion and of tlie Empire.” Vote Taken. The moving of the second amendment caused a measure of consternation. Aimed, as it was, at the abolition of the party system, it could hardly prove acceptable to either the Government or to the Opposition, but the forms of the House provided that it had to be put in such a way as to cause a vote to be taken on part of the Opposition’s amendment. Mr. Sexton’s amendment sought to remove all the reasons advanced by the Leader of the Opposition for lack of confidence in the Government, and the first question put to the House by the Speaker, Hon. W. E. Barnard, concerned the retention or otherwise of these grounds. Obviously the Government had to vote in favour of them being struck out and its members went into the lobby with Mr. Sexton and Mr. H. M. Rush worth (Independent, Bay of Islands), the result of the division being that the Opposition’s grounds for no-confidence were struck out by 39 votes to 11. The next, question was whether Mr. Sexton's reason for lack of confidence —the retention of the party system—should stand. Mr. Sexton himself insisted on a division and into the same lobby walked Government and Opposition members. Shouts of laughter could lx? heard from members over this unusual alliance, to be drowned subsequently in the singing of the song, “The More We Are Together.” Mr. Sexton’s amendment was defeated by 47 votes to three, the only member voting with Mr. Sexton and Mr. Rushworth being Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs). Effect of Divisions. “We have just had a happy time together,” said the Minister of Mines, Hon. P. C- Webb, w-bo rose to speak in the debate immediately after the division. "It is perhaps significant that it took a sexton to get us together.” As a result of the two divisions, a noconfidence amendment is still before the House, but it is shorn of all the specific charges levelled against the Government.

Mr. Sexton said that as he travelled up and down the country he found that there were a tremendous number of people who were disgusted that, tlie House did not discuss matters of national importance, but were trying to score off each other. The House should be like the board of directors of a large company. "What would shareholders of a company say,” he asked, “if the directors ker* getting to their feet and pulling each other to pieces about what had been said perhaps 20 years ago? Directors do not forjnj themselves into two parties. The party system of government is not a democratic system. Each party is run by an executive consisting roughly of the front benches. Members of a party dare not vote against their party on Important questions, no matter what their private feelings mav be.”

Mr. Sexton then read a long quotation from a study by G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc on the decline of the House of Commons, which he said applied to New Zealand.

COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING

Incorporation Proposal The incorporation of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting and the provision of definite legal status for that body arc the main provisions of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Bill, which was introduced iu the House of Representatives by Gov-ernor-General’s Message yesterday. The Bill provides for the reconstitution of the council to consist of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the president of the New Zealand Law Society, and five members of the society. who must be barristers of the Supreme Court, appointed by the council of the New Zealand Law Society. The members appointed by the society will retire in rotation

The functions of the Council of Law Reporting are defined and authority is given for the appointment of officers. Approval is also given for the investment of moneys not immediately required for the council's purposes. “This Bill is introduced at the desire of the legal profession It has been under negotiation for some time, and meets t e wishes of all concerned,” said the Attorney-General. lion. 11. G. R. Mason.

The Minister said there was at present a Council of Law Reporting, bur it was not incorporated, and there was some obscurity ns to its obligations with regard to such funds as it possessed. 'l'lio members of the council did not like the responsibility of handling considerable etuns of money without having the position made definite. The Bill was read a first time.