STONEWALL OVER

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 25 October 1924, Page 5

STONEWALL OVER

EXCITING END. UNPRECEDENTED SCENE. MEMBERS LEAVE THE HOUSE. (By Telegraph—Special to Star.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 24. Exactly 48 hours- after the commencement of the stonewall on the Gaming Amendment Bill an incident unprecedented in New -Zealand Parliamentary experience caused the whole opposition to cease under somewhat sensational circumstances, the opposing forces leaving the Chamber in a body as a protest, against the action of the Chairman of Committees (Mr J. A. Young) in declining to go back on the passing of the amendment, which he contended had not been challenged, but on which the stonewallers maintained Mr McCombs had called for a division. The incident occurred in connection with the voting on Mr Harris’ amendment to clause 2, substituting “the Governor-General’ 5 for “the Minister of Internal Affairs” as the authority who should distribute the peunits. Mr Young put the amendment, and apparently owing to the hum of conversation did not hear Mr McCombs call for a division. He immediately declared “the words stand.” and put the whole clause to committee. By. this time he heard calls for a division, and ordered the hells to be rung. Meanwhile confusion feigned amongst the opponents to the Bill, and a touch of humour was added to the situation bv the improvised head coverings which members used in order to conform to the standing orders. When raising points of order in committee the stonewallers declined to vote. The chairman listened to their statements, hut held that he did not hear any call for a division on the amendment, and that the division was being taken on the whole clause. This was a serious blow to' the stonewallers, and Mr Holland, wearing a hat much too large for him, openly declared thatthe ruling was quite wrong. However, Mr Young held to his ruling, and proceeded to appoint the tellers, but Messrs Sullivan, Edie and Wright in turn refused; to act on the grounds that they did not call for a division on the clause. Ultimately one set of tellers was appointed, Mr Smith and Mr Rhodes, but none of the opponents to the Bill left the Chamber, a fact which Mr Rhodes mentioned. Messrs Harris* Holland and Wright then announced that they absolutely refused to vote. Clause 2, authorising the issue of 31 permits, was thus left unchallenged, and after Mr Parry had intimated thathe intended to move an amendment Mr Harris rose and said he intended to leave the Chamber and take no further part in the debate as a protest against the action of the chairman in refusing to accept the word of an hon. member. The leader of the Labour Party (Mr Holland): I fully concur in what the hon. member has said. Mr McCombs, he said, had given his definite word of honour that he had called for a division on the amendment. The speaker added that he had also given his word of honour on the point. “You refused to accept the word of an hon. member,’ 5 said Mr Holland, “and we propose to withdraw from further proceedings under this Bill as a protest against you refusing to accent the word of hon. members of this House. Mr Atmore (Nelson), speaking as a supporter of the Bib, said that it was only fair-to Mr McCombs to say that he had asked for, a division on the amendment to delete the word. Mr Wright said that he, too, intended to withdraw because he distinctly heard Mr McCombs call for a division. AN INVITATION REFUSED. After further discussion the Labour members, with Messrs Wright and Harris, having withdrawn, a message was sent to Mr McCombs to return to the Chamber in order to have the situation explained, but the reply, as announced by Mr Young, was that Mr McCombs had no desire to come back to the Chamber. At that stage the Prime Minister, who had been out of the Chamber all day, was straightway summoned in order to get his views on the situation. When he arrived Mr Massey said that he was perfectly certain that -there was not a man in the House who would suggest that Mr "Young would be guilty of anything that was unfair or not perfectly straightforward, and he considered that Mr Young had acted in strict accordance with the standing orders. He had no doubt that whatever misunderstanding there had been had not been on Mr Young’s part. The question was a very awkward one to settle, but he* would support those who suggested that a division should be taken again. Voices: “No discussion.” Mr Massey: The difficulty is to pi-e-----vent discussion. He added that those who were supporting the Bill did not want to take any advantage. They wanted a straight-out issue, and if they could not win l>v straight and fair means they did not want to wip at all. He would prefer to err on the generous side. He eoukl quite understand that members were exasperated because of want of sleep, and lie thought a little allowance could be made for what had occurred. The leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilford) said that there was no .confusion in his mind as to what took place. The whole discussion on the amendment had ended-, and the motion was then put from the chair “that the words stand,” which meant the words “Minister of Internal Affaire.” There was a strange silence, and he thought that what was going to follow would be the same as on an earlier division, when a vote was called for hut the House did not actually divide. The fair thing to do was to have the amendment over again, but on the division. Mr Wilford moved to that effect. Mr Wilford’s motion was carried after the chairman find announced that it would be open for members once the division on the amendment had been taken to move further amendments to the balance of the clause. An adjournment was then made for the purpose of consulting the members who had left the House. WHAT HAPPENED OUTSIDE. The stonewallers 1 held a meeting while the committee adjourned, and they decided that as the Chairman of Committees had not accepted the word of honour of one of their number they would decline to continue the discussioq under his direction. “The thing is without precedent,” declared one of the prominent opponents of the Bill. “No chairman or Speaker, has ever refused to accept the word of a member until this incident. We will not go back at 7.30, but we will wait for the third reading of the Bill, when we will put on record our opinion of the position. We are not running away from fight/ 5 continued

the stonewaller, producing a large sheaf of amendments, “here is enough to keep up going till well into next week, and there are other members with scores of other . amendments. ’’ This details what occurred, during the temporary adjournment of the committee. What happened in- the House when Mr Young again took the chair was brief but signfiicant. He announced that the committee had resumed, and was proceeding to put the next, clause when he stopped 'in the middle of the usual.formula as he saw Mr Dickson, the Government Whip, walking quickly into the Chamber giving a signal with his outstretched hand. A conference between Mr Dickson and the chairman ensued. Mr Young immediately announced amid ironical laughter that he would resume the chair at 7.30. When the Committee resumed at 7.30 the chairman reported that mem--bers who had absented themselves had informed him that they would take no part in the committee proceedings. He accepted, however, the suggestion of the committee that they should go back to the amendment by Mr Harris which had been the cause' of the difficulty, It went to division, and was lost by 41 votes to five, the latter beHon. C. J. Parr. Messrs \\right, Sidey, F. J. Rolleston, and the Hon. Downie Stewart. Hie remainder of the Bill was passed unchanged, with the addition of the clause moved by Mr Poland and ade.pted by 37 votes to 10: “That on and after August 1, 1925, the minimum weight to be carried by any horse on any handicap shall be not less than 7st.” The Bill was reported and set down for its third reading on the next sitting day. the House adjourning till Monday night. Immediately the committee proceedings ended, the absentees returned, though they took no part in the proceedings, which were then formal.