PAST STONEWALLS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 74, 28 March 1931, Page 8

PAST STONEWALLS

PURPOSES AND RESULTS

MR. GiSBORNE'S SELF-

SACRIFICE

SOME INGENIOUS

DEVICES

By F.W.W.

Sloncw.-illiiig li:is been cultivated as ii political line art liy the legislators of Now Zealand i'or the lust fifty years, and has been put into practice on many occasions of strong public foeJing. The rules of the game, both as to what; may bo done and what must bo left undone, have been laid down by the ruling of successive Speakers of the House of Representatives, and the Labour members of to-day, while they havo not invented any new expedients, have in the last week shown that they have thoroughly mastered the system of the past, to its utmost minutiae. They havo displayed resourcefulness in discussion aud organisation equal to those of any of their predecessors in the holding up of Parliamentary business. The classic stonewall of New Zealand is that on the Representation Bill of 1881, in which Mr. Speaker O'Rorko laid down principles which _are invariably invoiced when H is considered that the time has come i'or the majority to assert, itself again*1': the obstructing minority. The Bill was one brought in by tho Hall Government, headed by tho dignified and courteous gentleman who afterwards became Sir John Hall, providing for tho electoral division of the colony, which at that period was a matter fought out on the 'floor of the House, and not, as at present, arranged by an independent Commission. So far.as there was any principle in the measure, it gave tho country districts a quota of 25 per cent, less than the quota of tho towns. Strong opposition was offered from, the outset by the town, representatives. Their leader was the Hon. W. Gisborne, one of New Zealand's most distinguished statesmen, who had been Colonial Secretary in the Fox Ministry of 1869-72, and Minister of Lands in the Grey Ministry of 1877-79. A STATESMAN'S SELF-IMMO-LATION. Tho Bill was strongly resisted on the motion for its second reading, aud one long evening was spent upon, it in Committee—mostly on alternate motions that progress be reported, and that the Chairman leave tho Chair — before the critical struggle began. This occurred on the first operative clause, fixing tho number of members at 91. Committal was resumed at 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 31st August, and that sitting lasted until 5 p.m. on the Saturday. For 48 hours there was an unbroken succession of tho alternating obstructivo motions, 23 in all. On tho Friday evening the Chairman of Committees, Mr. A. P. Seymour, of Picton, took a stern stand. He announced that he would accept no more motions for reporting progress or .leaving the Chair, and that he would not allow his ruling on the point to be disputed. If, he said, this decision was to be challenged, it would have to bo in open House, and after due notice. Hereupon Mr. Gisborne challenged t.he ruling of tho Chairman. He moved that progress be reported in ordor to obtain the Speaker's ruling at oaiee.. When the Chairman refused to accept the motion, Mr. Gisborne announced his intention to resist* the official ruling, with tho object of being reported as disorderly, as the only means of getting the Speaker's decision. Thereupon the Chairman left tho Chair, and reportod the occurrence to .the Speaker. The upshot was that Mr. Gisborne was declared guilty of contempt and fined £20. Then it was that Sir Maurice O 'RflTke, before quitting tho Chair, deliverisd the speech, which has been cited on aJmost every more recent occasion when a stonewall has required to be levelled. "Times will arise," he said, "when the House must show itself to be master in its own House. . . There is a power to release this House from a deadlock if it should be attempted to bring one about. In the exercise of that power I, for one, will not flinch from tie duty entrusted to me." In other words, while the House adopted Standing Orders which conferred certain rights upon members as to modes of procedure, it reserved itself the power to go behind those Standing Orders for sufficient reasons. Before the rising on Saturday the Bill was through Committee. Eventually it became law, but not without a divisiom on every stage, including even the ordinarily formal stage '' that tho Bill d<i now pass." The sequel to the fining incident was that before the Monday the people of Nelson had claimed "the honour" of paying Mr. Gisborno's tine, and subscribed tho amount many times over. COUNTRY VERSUS TOWNS. Representation was also the subject which led to the next big stonewall, that of 1880. The Atkinson Government of that year introduced a Bill which' was opposed by tho city and town member/), again on the ground of undue coneesaion to the rural districts. The debate ow. the motion for tho committal of the Bill began at 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday;, 24th July, and was car-, ried on into the small hours of the' morning. At 2 a.m., for tho discouragement of the opponents of the measure, in that they -would have neither audience nor reporting, a motion was carried excluding '"strangers." The debate was continued 'with closed doors up to midnight on th, c Saturday, and then from Monday afternoon till 4 p.m. on the following Wednesday (nearly six days) in ail, who.ii the motion for committal was carried, and "strangers" were readmitted. Then the real fun began, with tlie Committee stage. Mr. W; P. Beeves, of Christchurch, tvas the chief organiser of the stoneivvallers, and he had prepared an ingenious plan of campaign. Taking a iVictionary, he picked out every word in rt that would by any stretch of imagination apply to tho Bill or its supporters;—for instance, that they were "avaricious," that tho measure, was "appalling," and so on to tho letter Z. As there wris ho time-limit for speeches in those clays, he had thus armed himself and his colleagues with a list of heading's on which they would have been able to koap up relevant discussion to an almost -unlimited extent. Tho hold-up proceeded merrily through tho Thursday and Friday. A LEISURELY STONEWALL. In one way it was a, very leisurely stonewall. Sir Harry Atkinson, tho Premier, declared thai if tho Houso chose to waste time, ha was not going to endanger his health fty further continuous sittings. Accordingly, ho had the proceedings adjounucd about 11 p.m. each day until the fallowing morning. On tho Friday it fciecame evident that negotiations were stfoot between the Government and the opponents of tho Bill, for three times that day the Chairman (Mr. E. HanjHn) left the Chair. By Monday a covwpromiso was arranged.'instead of a deduction of 25 per cent, from the populations of the four ran in centres, us originally proposed in tho Bill, it was agreed that there should be the artdilinai of 28 per oent. hi tlio. case of rut al districts, which has been tho rule ever since

With this amendment tho Bill finally passed—the stonewallers had won. Independent Representation Commissioners were also for the first time sot up. The most grimly-fought stonewall in New Zealand history took place in connection with the Soddon Government's Original Old-age Pensions Bill in IS9B. This men sure was under consideration in Committee, with interspcrsions of other business, from 21st September to GtU October, and ninety hours, spread over twelvo sitting days, wero devoted to its clauses. One sitting began on Friday evening, and extended, with only the Sunday break, to nearly 1 a.m. on Tuesday. EXIT SECOND BALLOT. Again there was a determined struggle over the repeal of the Second Ballot, at tho Instance of the Massey Government, in 11)13. A special Biil for tho purpose was blocked in its early stages. The.ro was, however, an innocent little Legislature Amendment Bill of that year relating to the status of tho Clerk-Assistant of tho Legislative Council. To that Mr. Massey tacked on a simple clause declaring tho repeal of tho Second Ballot Act of Sir Joseph Ward, and on this issue battle was joined. Tho Bill was taken into Committee on a Tuesday evening, and did not como out until the early hours of the following Tuesday. Tho sitting was notable for tho firmness of Mr. Malcolm, Chairman of Committees in "tightening-up" tho rules as to "tedious repetition" and irrelevancy, and notifying members from time to time that he held certain points had been adequately discussed, and came within the ban for tediousness. Another stonewall, in 1924, upon Sir Goorgo Hunter's Gaming Bill, lasted from early on a Wednesday afternoon, in a continuous sitting, till after S o'clock on the Friday. The stouewallers wore worsted, and the Bill passed both Houses. As recently as 1929 there was a stonewall —known aB the "Whatsoever" incident—upon the United Government's Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill, which imposed the special land tax, the Reform Party holding up the Bill until o. concession was made in regard to the hardship clause. The measure got into Committee at 9.15 p.m. on a Tuesday ami* was "not out again until 10.45 p.m. on Thursday. The principal result attained was the insertion of a provision that relief should be given to the taxpayer if it were proved that the special tax would "on any fair and reasonable grounds whatsoever" inflict hardship upon him.