POLICY QUESTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 74, 9 March 1933, Page 10

POLICY QUESTION

DECISION OF COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN'S RULING

MEMBERS’ CRITICISM. Wellington, March 8. In its report on a petition requesting the Government not to give effect to the policy of raising the school admission age to six years, the Educaction Committee of the House of Representatives stated that as a question of Government policy was involved it had no recommendation to make. The report was presented by Mr W. A Bodkin (chairman of the committee). I’he Rev. Carr (Timaru) said that this was another case in which the Government’s- decision on ~u imoprtant education question had been made before it had been considered by the Education Committee of the House, and the Government had used its majority on the committee to secure a recommendation that did not conflict with its policy. He went on to say that a motion had been moved while the committee was sitting to refer the petition to the Government for favourable consideration, but the chairman had stated that he could not put the motion because the time was 2.30 p.m. and the committee could not under the Standing Orders continue sitting when the time had arrived for the assembly of the House. Mr Carr said he had pointed out that ■ it was not 2.30; in fact, it was only 2.24, and the House bells had not commenced ringing. The chairman was then about to put the motion, but the Minister of Native Affairs, who was representing Cabinet on the committee, had thereupon moved an amendment that, because a question of Government policy was involved, the committee had no recommendation to make. It had ■ been apparent nt that stage that the i amendment would not have been car- ) ried, and the Minister had frankly stat- ; ed that he would adopt the time-lion-I oured custom of “talking the matter out.” He had adopted this course, and when the matter had again come before the committee there had been a majority in favour of the Minister’s amendment. COALITION FORCES. Mr Carr complained that the action of the chairman of the committee in failing to put the motion when it first had been moved had been reprehensible. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) alleged that the full force of the Coalition had been brought to bear upon its representatives on the committee to ensure that the Minister’s amendment would be carried The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said that the question of the school admission ago was a matter of Government policy and had been settled in the House before the petition had come before the committee. He askel what good purpose could have been served by endeavouring to induce the committee to make a recommendation which would renew the agitation on this subject. The Leader of the Opposition said it was apparent from the Prime Minister’s remarks that it was futile, no matter how just the case might be, to petition Parliament wherever a matter of Government policy was involved, because the Government would use pressure on its majority of members on any select committee to secure that a report was brought down that would not conflict with its policy’. He hoped that Mr Forbes -would not persist in that attitude.

Mr Holland moved that the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Eden) also expressed regret at the view stated byMr Forbes. He said that if it became apparent that just consideration could not b e obtained for a petition it would be the duty of members of Parliament to inform petitior ers that it was useless to appeal to the highest court in the land when the matter touched upon Government policy. Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames): It has always been the same. UNQUALIFIED DENIAL. Mr H. Holland (Christchurch expressed regret that the party feeling had recently manifested itself in the oroceedings of select committees. In his opinion Mr Bodkin had always been absolutely fair and impartial. Mr Holland added that he desired to give an unqualified denial to the statement that pressure had been brought to bear upon Government representatives on select committees, and he instanced the tact that one Government member had voted against the Minister’s amendment to show that Coalition representatives had been free to vote in accordance with their convictions. Mr Bodkin said that he took exception to Mr Carr’s reference to him. He quoted from the minutes of committee meetings to show that he had previously agreed to postpone the taking of the vote on the subject of a petition until there was a full meeting of members. | Ho hud done this on occasions when there was a majority in favour of the Government view. He would not lend himself to an attempt to secure an unfair advantage over any member. Referring to the occasion when the matter had come up for final cons'dcration. he said he had consulted his watch when the motion had been moved, and members of the committee would bear him out that the time by his watch had been 2.30. Mr Carr had pointed out that the time was actually 2.24, and he had been preparing to put the motion when the Minister had in- i tervened and moved the amendment. , which ultimately was carried. Mr P. I Fraser (’Wellington Central) had good- I huinoiiredly commented on the (Minis- j tor's tactics and remarked: “We’ll ad- j journ till yon get a full meeting.” It was at a full meeting of the committee that the amendment bad been adopted. Mr 11. Atmore (Nelson) said lie re sented the Prime Minister’s inference that he as a member of the comniitlee bad voted on party lines. He had voted in accordance with his conviel ions. Reviewing the proceedings of the committee to which Mr Carr had referred, Mr Atmore said that the chairman had displayed excitement when the motion had been moved and had said that the time was 2.30. Mr Atmore also pointed out that the amendment eventually- had been carried only on the chairman’s casting vote. Mr Holland’s lion was defnate.' by 41 to 22 votes and the report was taujed.