PARLIAMENT ACRIMONIOUS BATTLE OF WITS IN HOUSE

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 July 1946, Page 2

PARLIAMENT ACRIMONIOUS BATTLE OF WITS IN HOUSE

The No-Confidence

Debate Government on the Defensive [SPECIAL TO STAR.] WELLINGTON, July 29. The predictions that the no-confi-dence motion in the House of Representatives on the Lewis case would precipitate a lively debate were abundantly fulfilled. From the opening gambit, when the Prime Minister Mr. Fraser, unsuccessfully sought to out-manoeuvre the Opposition on the wording of the motion, until the final scene after midnight on Thursday, it was a keen ■ and at times acrimonious battle of wits and tactics.

After this, it was expected that Friday’s inevitable reaction would find the Chamber dull and lifeless, but instead there occurred one of the most dramatic moments in the Parliament for several years, when an R.S.A. badge was literally “tabled” by a man standing in the public gallery. Later in the day there was another flare-up when Mr. Fraser’s proposal to test the Speaker’s ruling on a question by a vote'of the House created an atmosphere of almost painful tension.

Mr. Holland and Mr. Nash deserve credit for their efforts at restoring harmony in a situation which for a time appeared to possess unpleasant possibilities. While Mr. Schramm may not have the Olympian dignity of the late Sir Charles Statham, his fairness cannot be questioned. More than one Labour member subsequently declared that he could not conscientiously have supported the Prime Minister’s motion.

Badge-throwing Incident The incident which disturbed proceedings immediately after prayers on Friday morning, when an R.S.A. badge was thrown from the public gallery on to the large table on which the mace is placed while the House is sitting, was over so quickly that many Government members who had their backs to the public gallery did not at first realise what had happened. Mr. Julius Hyde, the man concerned, stood as an independent against Mr. Fraser at the 1943 election and polled 100 votes. On past occasions he has attracted attention by issuing circulars couched in rather unusual terms. Incidents of this kind are rare, and it is really rather surprising that they do not happen more often. Although access to the other galleries is controlled by the issue of tickets, which are granted on the request of members, the public gallery is open to anyone except on special occasions. Comparatively few people take advantage of this privilege, but there are a few “regulars,” who appear to find the proceedings of the Legislature irresistibly fascinating. Mr. Hyde, whose son served in the air I'oree and was decorated, had been in attendance in the gallery throughout the week’s debate. His badge, which was apparently intended for Mr. Skinner, was picked up by Mr. Nash, who gave it to the clerk of the House, through whom it was returned to R.S.A. headquarters. Although urgency was claimed by the Prime Minister, giving him power to force the motion through at one sitting if he desired, the debate on Mi'. Holland’s no-confidence motion extended over three nights and two afternoon sittings. _ The preliminary exchanges were quite amicable, but Mr. Fraser was obviously angling for an opening to present an amendment designed to trap the Opposition into voting on some general principle rather than on a specific issue. Mr. Holland declined to be caught in the trap. “We are not going to put our chins out,” he said, and his motion was, therefore, worded in such a way that no amendment could be moved to it.

Cold Legal Analysis During the debate many disparaging' references were made by Government members to the several lawyers on the Opposition benches. Mr. Semple, with elaborate sarcasm, said, “I am not a lawyer nor am I a professaw.” Yet it was obvious that an iri—fusion of legal acumen and experience on the Government side would have enabled a stronger case to be presented in support of Mr. Skinner's action. Without exception, the Opposition’s legal members gave analytical and lucid surveys of the essential points at issue, whereas the Government members repeatedly took refuge in partisan generalities of a kind now depressingly familiar. For sheer irrelevance Mr. Semple s contribution was a masterpiece. His speech was almost exclusively devoted to the tribulations of his early career, and produced at least one characteristic piece of picturesque verbiage. When alluding to Mr. Hallyburton Johnstone, who had permitted himself an indiscreet smile, he proclaimed vehemently that “A man who would laugh at this would laugh at his mother’s funeral. He hasn’t got a heart. He’s got a gizzard like a rooster.” There were some good speeches on both sides. Mr. Skinner and Mr. Fraser who opened the Government s case were neither confident nor convincing. From Mr. Skinner there was an.excessive repetition of “I have no apologies to make.” Mr. Nordmeyer, however, introduced a more aggressive note. Mr. Sheat, too, was in fine form, and attacked the central issues with ringing eloquence. “No form of Ministerial sophistry,” he said, can cover up the ugly implications of this unfortunate business.” Mr. Fraser showed a fine grasp of political history when he picked up an interjection referring to John Mackenzie and turned it to swift advantage. His mood was conciliatory, and he seemed to admit the possibility that Mr. Skinner might have been wrong.

Able Contributions It was noticeable, too, that Mr. Nash, in his very able speech, dealt with abstractions rather than with the actual charges against Mr; Lewis. Mi. Macdonald, whp followed him in a speech that was a model of brevity, paid a tribute to him as a skilful debater and fluent speaker, but said he appeared to be- “talking to convince himself.”. - ... The real honours in this epic contest belonged 'to Mr. Holland. In his masterly summing-up extending over the midnight hour on Thursday, he dealt piece by piece with the Govern-

ment arguments, and his reply was, in fact, a model of forensic skill. After all this —after his “little bit of a fuss” as Mr. Denham termed it—it was a foregone conclusion that the motion would be defeated, and in the crucial division the tally was 41 to 32 in the Government’s favour. Perhaps the least edifying feature of the debate was that for three days the national broadcasting system was the medium for an attack on a private individual who had no opportunity of reply. This and other features of parliamentary broadcasting, including the unseemly jockeying for the best time on the air, are crying aloud for correction.