THE GUILLOTINE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 76, 31 March 1931, Page 10

THE GUILLOTINE

CLOSURE DEBATE

RIGHTS OF MINORITY

AMENDMENT ACCEPTED

~ The debate on tho motion of the Prime Minister (tk«- 'SSght ■■Hon. G. W. Forbes) to amend the String-Orders so as to provide for a closure was continued in the House of Bcpreseutativcs yesterday, and tho final amendment was not disposed of until 2.30 o 'clock this morning. In moving an amendment that the Chair shall not accept a closure motion which ia an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, 'Avon) said that there had been no attempt to muzzle the Reform Party while it fought for the big landowners of tho community, but when the Labour Parly was trying to protect the lower-paid worker the closure motion was introduced. The Prime Minister ought to be prepared to stand up to obstruction just as his predecessors had done. PRECEDENT 'FOR AMENDMENT. Seconding the amendment, Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Chvislchurch South) maintained that the members of the smallest party in the House had equal right with tho members of any other party, however large, to express the views of their constituents. He pointed out that a provision on the linos of the amendment appeared in the Standing Orders of tho House of Commons. In South. Africa thero was a similar protection of the rights of minoritie.s. Tho Leader of the Opposition (the .■Right Hon.1 J. G. Coates) suggested an addition to tho amendment to permit •the Chair to judge whether a closure motion was moved for the purpose of obstructing business. There was such »• proviso in Victoria. The Prime Minister (the Eight Hon. O." W. Forbes) pointed out that the closure-could only be applied with the sanction of a'majority of the House, and, therefore, as the Government was in a minority, members should feel easy. He objected to being compelled to sit for hours in the House and having to swallow interminable talk, talk, talk, from a minority, "and often," he added, "from les3 informed persons .tTian ourselves." It was reasonable and sensible that after a fair opportunity had been given for discussion, a-Vote should bo taken. There was nothing undemocratic about that..lnterminable talk was a sort of forcible feeding. He had -no objection to the amendment, and he was . prepared to leave it in tho hands of the Speaker or the Chairman to decide whether the .purpose of the dobato had been served. It had been made clear in the past week that a closure provision was very neccseary, but he did not intend to curtail Jho speeches or privileges of members. The Leader of the Labour Party '(Mr. H. E. Holland) congratulated Mr. Forbes on his change of view. It was an admission that the motion as originally drawn was wrong, and that the Labour Party's arguments were right. .Ho did not sec any need for the addition suggested by. Mr. Coates. Ho asked whether the Prime Minister would use tho closure only for the purpose of preventing amendments or discussion on amendments. Mr. Forbes had talked a lot of nonsense about tho business of the House being held up. One would think Mr. Forbes had never in. his history taken part in any holdup.; in. the House. It was only now when he was in office that he seemed ■to think the Opposition had no right to hold up legislation which it regarded as objectionable. Mr. ,T. M'Combs (Labour, Lyttelton) eaid Mr. Forbes had been wise in accepting the amendment, but he regretted .that the. Prime Minister had seen fit to jeer at thoso who had been advocating the rights of tho minority. The amendment was carried on tho yoice3. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau) 'questioned whether it was right to discuss a closure during an emergency session. This was the first time he had known the Standing Orders to be made the subject of party strife. Mr. Jordan moved, to make certain consequential amendments to the Prime Minister's motion. The amendment was seconded by Mr. J. O'Brien (Lab., Westland). NOT HELPING THE GOVERN- . . MENT. The Prime Minister said he realised that the amendments moved by the, -Labour Party were not-idesigned to help the Government, but to make the motion almost impossible of being put into operation. Mr. Sullivan: "Wo want to mako it as little offensive as possible." The Prime Minister said he wanted the Standing Orders to be clear, and not wrapped round with difficult terms and unnecessary words. The Government wanted tho simplest forms adopted. Tho addition of the words proposed by Mr. Jordan would-not have that effect; tho result would be the reverse to what was ' aimed at by tho Government. ■On a series of divisions Mr. Jordan V amendments were rejected. QUESTION OF MAJORITY. . Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) moved an amendment designed to limit tho application of tho closure to Committee proceedings and to ensure that a majority of the House vote beforo "the question was put." The amendment was seconded by Mr. C. H. Chapman (Lab., Wellington North), who declared that tho closure proposal would not only play into the hands of the Government but into the hands 'of the newspaper, interests as well. ■ Had the Government not introduced the closure motion, legislation before the House would now havo been advanced to a further stage than had been reached. If the Government found it could not got its legislative proposals through it had tho alternative of appealing to the country, instead of introducing the closure, which was an admission that it had been defeated. On a division the amendment was de\faeted by 50 votes to 24. . Mr. R. M'Kcen (Labour, Wellington South) maintained that the closure meant a suppression of free speech, and tho effect would be the antithesis of democracy. Twenty members could apply the closure and surely that was wrong. , Tho Prime Minister (the Eight Hon. G. W. Forbes): "There must be a majority." • .■.,.;■■:: Mr. M|Keen: "But why not a majority of the House—that is democracy." The great Canadian statesman, Sir Wilfred Laurier, had stated that he would rather make an appeal to the people than apply the gag, and that was what the present Government should do. The Government 'had 25 members out of 80 and was determined to bludgeon legislation through Parliament e.ij tho suggestion of some sinister influence outside the House. The present Government had beconio purely and simply machine politicians, and it was being supported by the Reform Party. It would appear that the closure had beeu decided upon after a council "Between tho two parties. Mr. M'Keen moved a proviso that tho Standing Orders shall be in forco only when the Speakor or Chairman of Committees is in the Chair. He said that

it ivas quit unfair that a closure should lie applied when a deputy-Speaker or a deputy-Chairman was in the chair. • 'MARCHING ORDERS.' ' In seconding the amendment, Mr. E. Semplo (Lab., Wellington East), said that the closure was. an indelible stigma on tho Now Zealand Parliament. It was generally known that many members of the Government party were smarting under tho Government's proposals, but they had been kept in check by tho party whips and the economic lash. In another country the closure had been referred to as '.'the signal of funk" and "the coward's retreat," and ho suggested those expressions could be applied to the present case. "It is not an amendment of the Standing Orders that is wanted," said Mr. Semple, "but the marching orders." (Laughter.) Tnajitofirlincjit was defeated by 47 votes to "2. . ■ Tho concluding stages? of the debate aro reported elsewhere.