THE CLOSURE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 77, 1 April 1931, Page 13

THE CLOSURE

ITS FIRST USE

EXCITEMENT IN HOUSE

RULING ON AMENDMENTS

"I move the question be now put." This short statement from Prime Minister when the Houso of Kepresentiitivcs was still considering clauso 2 of tho I'iunnco Bill at 4.30 p.m. yesterday—having commenced tho resumed discussion at 10 o'clock—provoked interruption from apparently every member of the Labour Party. They shouted "Oh" and chorusscd "Gag!!" Curiosity as to how the closure would bo. first applied in tho New Zealand Parliament caused members to listou intently when the Chairman of Committees (Mr. W. A. Bodkin) . addressed them. He stated that tho subject matter of clause 2 had been exhaustively debated, and had been made the subject of quite a number of amendments, and ho ruled that the. question could bo put without infringing tho rights of members. Mr. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central):. "AVhy, some havo not spoken yet." Mr. Chapman (Labour, AVcllington North): "I desire your ruling. I have not spoken. In the event of a member not having spoken, has he a right " Tho Chairman: "No." Mr. Parry: "Tho gong has gone." (Laughter.) Thero was a general raising of similar points from tho Labour benches, and the Chairman stated that when the motion was dealt with ho would proceed to answer these questions. "Sandbaggers to the right" shouted Mr. Parry as the majority of members filed that way in favour of the closure, which was carried by 48 votes to 26. POINTS OF ORDEE. Tho excitement died down when points of order came .under review. Mr. J. W. Munro (Labour, Dunedin North) was informed by the Chairman that it was not open to a member ■■ to move any further .amendment. The Chairman proceeded to put the amendment, which had been under discussion when the Prime Minister moved the closure. This had been moved by Mr. J. O'Brien (Labour, Westland) with. the object of exempting those earning the basic wage of £4 0s _8d and less. It was defeated on division b7 Mi 6BodSn tthen'defined tho position of amendments. The only business before the Committee, ho explained, weie motions or questions which had -been proposed from the : Chair, and any amendments that might proposed or had been notified but not actually proposed, were not before the Committee. "I regret, therefore," he added, "that it is not possible for me to receive any further amendment, and nothing further can be done in that "T number of Labour members rose with points or order, and the■ Chairman suggested that perhaps at would save timo if ho reported to Mr. Speakei in order that his opinion could bo taken on the ruling that the mam question mMr bp Eraser (Labour, Wellington Central): "Surely you, are capable of giving a ruling in' which you have faith." ME. SPEAKER BXJLES. There was a brief exchaugo of opinions among members interested in the Standing Orders, and Mr. Speaker was then called in. ' ' , ". Having listened to half an hours argument, Sir Charles Statham clearly answered all the points in dispute. Pull discretion was, he said, left to the Chairman of Committees, and there was no appeal from that discretion. "After all," remarked Mr. Speaker, "the Chairman of Committees has sat and listened to the debate in Committee and must bo the best judge of whether the closure ought to be put, I can only express the' opinion that I hope it will not be put too harshly." < On the points of order involved, Mr. Speaker stated that the new closure Standing Order appeared to follow the language of that in operation in the House of Assembly in South Africa. He road portions of the South African Standing Order, which included a provision that members desiring to move amendments to Bills must hand them to tho Clerk not later than 4 p.m. on the-day before the day of debate. Therefore it seemed clear that the words of tho New Zealand Standing Order, which corresponded to that of South Africa, did not apply exclusively to amendments which had been, proposed from the Ohairi but that there was another method of proposing them. The New Zealand Standing Order relating to the order in which amendments would be taken,would be meaningless if it did not refer "to amendments which had not been proposed from the the Chair. He made the suggestion that amendments should be handed to the Clerk of the House or the Assistant Clerk, in case of Committee proceedings, so as to ensure that the member concerned would bo able to get the decision of the House upon them. OBVIOUS OBSTKUCTION. Answering points raised by the Prime Minister and Sir Apirana Ngata that freedom to movo amendments might result in a series of obstructive ones being submitted, Sir Charles Statham replied that ho would take it upon himself- to say that full discretion should be vested in the Chairman to rule out any amendment put forward for the purpose of obstruction. "For example," ho"continued, "if instead of reductions in stages of £25 they had been diminishing by £1 at a time, that would obviously constitute amendments moved for obstruction." Mr. Harris: "Would there be any discussion?" Mr. Speaker: "There would be no-dis-cussion."