AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 138, 8 December 1921, Page 9

AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL

OHDER-IN-COUNCIL PROCEDURE

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS

ZXZC

Furth« amendments) to the Ouatoms CBill and the Tariff schedules were made J>y tibe House of Representatives last! night. The Prime Minister explained j ■that ihe principal amendment had been designed to meet the objection of the j Opposition. that too much, was bejcng* done by Orders-m-Council. | When the amendments were • introduced by Governor-General's message, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prim« Minister to explain whether these "were new proposals or the result of, the discussions of the past few days. Th« Prime Minister said there were no new proposals—the amendments were in fulfilment of the promises made. The most important amendment was a new clauselo meet the objection that too much power was given to the Minister in regard to Orders-in-Oouncil. The new clausp read :— • "(1) Every Ord'er-ra-Oouncii under this. Act may be at any time in like manner' revoked or varied, and, until revoked, shall have effect according to its tenor, save that an Order-in-Council to give effect t-6 any agreement,'or arTangement referred to in section ten' ihereof shall have no effect or operation, until the agreement or arrangement lias been ratified as provided in that section.

1 . "(2) Every Order-in-Council under this Act shall be laid' before the House .of [Representatives: within fourteen days after'the gazetting thereof if PaTlfcunent is then in session, and, if not, then •within fourteen days .after the commencement of the next ensuing session. "(3) If the House of Representatives resolves that aay such Order-in-Oo'uncil should be revoked or varied, it shall thereupon be revoked or varied in .accordance with, the terms of'the resolution, i "(4) If any Or&er-in-Council und:er this Act is revoked or varied pursuant to a resolution of the House oi Repre•eniiative% any duty collected theretinder in excess of the duty otherwise payable shall, so far as such resolution so provides, be refunded. "(5) Any Order-in-Cbun'cil as aforesaid may ba retrospective, in so far as it haft the effect of exempting any goods from Customs dtuty, or of reducing the rate or amount of Customs duty payable in respect of any goods, and refunds of duty may be paid in Tespect of, such goods accordingly : provided , that, no refund of duty shall be made j under tine authority of this section, save in respect of goods entered for home consumption within the period of six months immediately t preceding the date of the Order-in-Council." j Then, continued Mr. Massey, it vrae proposed that the power to exempt from payment of special duty should be transferred from the Minister, to the Go-vernor-General. All Ord'ers-in-Counoil •would have to be submitted to the House of Representatives. Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller): "Before they become operative ?" Mr. Massoy: "No, but within fourteen d»y» of the meeting of Qic House. T&ey must be submitted to Parliament." Speaking for hdnwelf, he admitted that the clause as it had, stood gave too much power to the Minister, lie thought the new clause ia great improvement. . Mir. J. M'Cbmbs (Lyttelton) : "Why not put it 'unless the House confirms , the 'proposal*?' ". Mr. Massey did not think this necessary. '. '• ! - ' \ PRIVATE MEMBERS IMPOTENT. , Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said the old position remained. Should a member move a motion Hostile to an Order-in-Council, all the Prime Minister would have to do would be to keep the . notice of motion at the bottom of the ' Order Paper and never let the House ! have the opportunity of considering it. Mr. Massey: "Do yon think any Prime Minister would be foolish enough ■to do a thing like that?" Mr. Veitch: "Prime Ministers have done many foolish things in the past."

Mr. 0. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) supported Mr. Vcitch, and said the provision did not safeguard the rights of members. i ■ The Prime Minister: "The Government has to submit the Orders-in-Coun-cil to the House." Mr.' Statham said this was so, but this did not necessarily mean the giving of an opportunity to have considered a hostile motion. He would like to see a provision for the Orders-in-Council to be placed'before-the House at the first opportunity after their coming -'nto force, and the House, required to resolve whether or not they should remain in force. •! ■ The Minister of Customs (the Hon. \V. IDowniej Stewart)' argued that there were many occasions on which prompt action was neejded. If the member, for Dunedin Central could evolve, a clause to enable the Government to retain the necessary power to act promptly »ud at the same time preserving I 'he full | rights of the House, he would be prepared to consider it with a view to in- j corporating it in the Bill. In a personal explanation, Mr. Slatbam said he was not opposed to the Government having power to deal with emergencies. What he sought was to see that the House had power to pass judgment on the Orders-in-Council. Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller) argued that the opportunity to debate the issue might never arise. By permission of the House, Mr. MasBey made an explanation 01 how the Government could be forced to listen to anyone whii complained of the contents ot an Order-in-Council. if an' Order-in-Council were issued in the recess, he said, ifc would be the duty of members, if they felt a wrong had been done, to bring the matter up directly the first Imprest Supply Bill was brought down. It was an old order that the redress of grievances might be insisted oh before Supply. A similar opportunity came ■with the arrival of the Appropriation Bill a,t the end of the session. Mr. G. Witty (Riccarton): "They might insist, but they would not get Mr. Massey felt there could be no question about the opportunity being given. i Mr. Holland said that what he objected to was the Ministry having the ; power .during the intervals of Parliament to over-ride the decisions of Parliament in the previoua session. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) agreed as to the neod for the Order-in-Council power in regard to dumping, but ho did not think the power should be given in the other directions proposed. Mr. D. .G. Sullivan (Avon) thought the intention of the Minister was honest, but when it came to ir.fcintaining the rights of the democracy or, gaining an economic advantage, there should beino hesitation-^-tho rights of Parliament should be safeguarded. •■ ..,-■! Mr. J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) joined in the protest against (lie House resigning any of.its rights to say how the people should be (axed. Ho said that if a private member took' advantage of the]

opportunity suggested by the Prime Mm- | ister the motion would be made one of no-confidence, and members would be compelled to vote with their party, whatever their views. NO DICTATION. The amendments were dealt with in Committee. ; The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T,. M. Wilfdrd) thought some provision should be made to ensure that there should be a resolution in the House dealing with Orders-in-Council. He suggested the addition of the words: " Such Order-in-Council shall be varied, confirmed, or revoked by resolution of the House of Representatives." The Prime Minister, said Parliament could not be dictated to.' It; was master of its own acts. This was'a most difficult question, and he would see if something could not be done to strengthen the ; provision. He thought something might be done by providing tha£ it shquld be the duty of the, Minister to test the feeling of the House. The Government had proved its bona fides by bringing down this amendment. Mr. Wilford: " I admit that." . Mr. J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) moved as an amendment that Orders-in-Couricil should be revoked, if not continued by resolution within twenty-one days of the commencement of the session. Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin. Central) suggested a better way wag to provide that' if; any member gave notice of motion ftvijihin. five days of'the presentation of the Order-in-Council it should be deemed to be revoked, unless, a vote were taken within fourteen days. Mr. M'Combs'B amendment was defeated by 49 to 17. Mr. Statham moved an amendment on the lines of his suggestion, and this was ; 1 rejected 'by 43 to 23. I Mr. T. K. Sidey , (Dunedin South) moved as an' addition to the Bill that Orders-in-Council referring!, to specified clauses (where the matter'was not urgent) should not be effective till ratified by Parliament. The amendment was lost on the voices. The new clause providing for the submission of Orders-in-Council was carried.