PASSAGE OBSTRUCTED

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 113, 9 November 1929, Page 11

PASSAGE OBSTRUCTED

TRANSPORT BILL

A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE

The Government's transport legislation very nearly participated in the "slaughter of the innocents" which usually occurs at the end of the Parliamentary session; there were stones in its. path in both Chambers. In the Legislative Council this morning, when only fourteen members wero present, exception was taken to the fact that tho Transport Department Bill made its appearance after the Appropriation Bill, which is generally regarded as the last measure of the session, had been passed, and an attempt was made to prevent its further progress.

When the second reading of t'.e Bill was proposed, tho Right Hon. • Sir Francis Bell moved tho adjournment of the debate.

Tho Leader of tho Council (the Hon. T. K. Sidey): "I anticipate that this is because the Bill is brought ■ down after the Appropriation Billi"

Sir Francis: "Yes, and the condition of the Council also."

Mr. Sidey: "Although it may be a practice which is not encouraged because it is somewhat exceptional, there is nothing to prevent legislation coming, on after the Appropriation Bill.

The Hon. "Precedent."

Sir William Hall-Joues

PRECEDENT IN 1888.

"I can give precedent for it being done," said Mr. Sidey, who added that May laid own that the passing of the Appropriation Bill took place ordinarily, but not necessarily, on the day of the prorogation of Parliament. In New Zealand there had been many occasions when, after the Appropriation Bill had been, passed, Messages had come from the Governor-General introducing amendments to Bills already passed. There had been some occasions when Bills had been put through after the Appropriation Bill. Thero was a specific case in 1888. Therefore there was a precedent for what was now proposed. If any great departure from, existing legislation was being asked for he might hesitate to ask the Council to put the Bill through, but as a matter of fact there was not a great deal involved in the Bill. He expressed the hope that the council would not agree to adjourn tho debate. NOT PROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

"The question is," said Sir Francis Bell, "whether, after member's have been practically discharged from the performance of their duties by the passing of the Appropriation Bill, the Council should proceed to take part iv further legislation. You have only to look around at the- benches of. this Council now and see that the Council is not. fully equipped to consider this Bill." Ho contended that what Mr. Sidey had referred- to was not a parallel, for the Bills involved in ISSS were local Bills. It was clear from the condition of the Council that members had been impressed with the fact that the Appropriation Bill was the last measure of the session. They had had the Bill in their hands only a few minutes and had had absolutely no time to gauge its effect. He asked the Council not to create a precedent of which their successors might have cause to complain.

The Hou. Sir William Hall-Jones supported Sir Francis Bell,' remarking that it was not fair to the absent members that tho further Bill should be put through.

The Hon. E. Newman submitted that no precedent should be allowed to stand in tho way when the legislation was regarded as nccessarv to the country.

"A BAD PRECEDENT."

"I believe that if there is such a precedent as has been spoken of," said tho Hon. Sir James Allen, "it is a bad precedent. During the past 40 years we have established a definite principle that the Appropriation Bill is the last Bill of the session." Tho Auckland members, who wero particularly* interested in the measure, had goire home because they believed the last Bill had been passed.

"I Jim not a lawyer, and I am not going to be bound by your precedent," declared the Hon. J. Barr.

"There is nothing in our Constitution Act or by regulation to say that a Bill of this character cannot be passed if tho Appropriation Bill lias been passed," said the Right Hon. Sir Robert Stout, who submitted that there was no reason why it should not 'go through, especially as he regarded it as a merely formal measure.

Mr. Sidey said it did not matter how far they had to go back for a precedent, so long as they wero on the side of the Constitution Act. In 18S8 not only were local Bills passed after the Appropriation Bill, but also a Public Works Bill. Was it to be argued that because certain membors had gone home tho Governor-General could not bring down what he considered were necessary amendments to a Bill thst had already been passed?

Tho motion for tho adjournment was defeated by 11 votes to 5.

In the course of the discussion on the Bill the opinion was expressed by some speakers that members should oppose the Bill because all wore not present.

. Tho Bill was passed without ment.' . >