THE CLOSURE APPLIED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22412, 7 May 1936, Page 13

THE CLOSURE APPLIED

DAIRYING BILL POLITICAL BATTLE "MUST BE PASSED" STAND BY MR. SAVAGE OPPOSITION TACTICS CONTEST IN COMMITTEE [by TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Wednesday A political battle in tho true sense of the word was waged in the House of Representatives to-day, when members of the Opposition sought to give effect to their declaration that they would contest the passage of the Primary Products Marketing Bill "every inch of the way." The Prime Minister, Mr- Savage, for his part expressed his determination to have the bill passed. The whole scope of the debate was altered by the amendment moved early this morning by the Hon. A. Hamilton (Opposition —Wallace) and plans which had been made to complete the second reading debate to-night with broadcast speeches by the Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, and the Minister of Finance, Hon. W. Nash, had perforce to be scrapped. Three Divisions in Succession The attitude of the Government was clearly indicated when, after two speakers had discussed the amendment this afternoon, the Prime Minister made use of the closure Three divisions were taken in rapid succession and then the House went into committee on the bill, with the Opposition apparently ready to contest every clause. The discussion on the shorjb title occupied just over three hours. Opposition members "stone-walled " with the adroitness and assurance of old campaigners and were not nearly at the end of their tether when just before the supper adjournment the Prime Minister again invoked the closure. There were two more divisions, one on the closure motion and the other on the short title itself. On both the Government naturally carried the day. After the adjournment the Opposition settled down to put forward a series of amendments to the various clauses and an all night sitting appeared to be inevitable. Proposed Amendment Mr. Hamilton's amendment, introduced with almost dramatic suddenness early this morning, was that the bill should be referred back to the Government for further consideration on the following grounds: — "That the bill proposes to restrict the freedom of private ownership and to destroy individual rights long enjoyed by the primary producer of this countrv, inasmuch as he has always retained freedom of production and ownership, whereas the measure before the House introduces new principles and untried methods in that the State assumes ownership and distribution of all his primary produce, and in particular dairy produce and all allied produce. such as boneless veal, pigs and manufactured by-products of milk, amounting in effect to confiscation. Price Fluctuations "That the bill purports to eliminate fluctuations in the market prices of exported primary products, but. fails to do so as it provides that the prices shall from time to time be fixed by the Governor-General by Order-in-Council. ' "That the price received for butter up to the end of March last averaged 12.20 d per lb., and that in view of climatic conditions and other factors affecting New Zealand's competitors in world markets and the prices received over the past year, there are clear indications of improved prices for the current year. "That the methods and basis of estimating the price to be fixed for the primary products to be taken over are impracticable. "That the proposed change in the channels of distribution that have been built up over many years of experience and practice must injuriously affect thp goodwill established overseas and thereby react to the disadvantage of the dairy farmer. "That the freedom enjoyed in the past by farmers in manufacturing home-made butter and cheese and in supplying surplus to stores is curtailed bv the provisions of the bill. Plebiscite Suggested "That in view of the far-reaching effect of the measure under discussion the primary producer should be given an opportunity of deciding by a plebiscite his approval or otherwise of the principles contained therein. "That assistance can be given to the primary producer by methods other than by the State assuming complete ownership of all produce." The early morning introduction of the amendment appeared to take the Government by surprise, but when the House resumed this afternoon the Government appeared to be prepared for all eventualities. As soon as the formal business had been disposed of the Prime Minister rose to ask for urgency fcr the passing of the bill. Yesterday, his request had been merely for urgency for the second reading. The urgency motion was not contested. The debate on the amendment was continued by Mr. W. J. Poison (Opposition—Stratford), who traversed the grounds set out in the eight clauses for referring the measure back to the Government. The farmers, he said, wanted no bureaucracy. They wanted to take charge of their own business in their own way, with a recognition of the eo-operative principles on which the success of the industry had been built. The bill did not state what was to be the price to be guaranteed to tho farmer. " Crude, Unstudied Plan " The Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. G. \Y Forbes: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture knows. Mr. Poison I hardly think he knows. The Minister is apparently standing on the outside. He is not in the confidence of the junta which controls the destinies of the Labour Party. "This crude, unstudied plan," Mr Poison added, " created by men who Put a spell over the country by the glamour ol their word spinning, is doomed to failure The farmer will have nothing of it " Discussing the desirability of a plebiscite of farmers on the whole question, Mr. Poison said ho had never ncard of a greater autocracy or dictatorship than that proposed under the bill. The Government had declared that the Kxecutive Commission of •Agriculture was a dictatorship and I taat it would be wiped out in an effort to restore freedom to the farmers, but the Government, was planning to take greater powers than the commission « v er possessed It was a complete betrayal of election promises. _ Mr. - R. A. Wright (Independent— Suburbs) supported the amendment, and contended that the hill would not eliminate price fluctuations in overseas markets. He also p °ured a general plebiscite on the I € rnnient's proposals. J

At the conclusion of Mr. Wright's speech the Prune Minister rose and moved the application of the closuro. in accepting the motion " that the question be now put," the Speaker quoted the relevant Standing Order, which states that the motion must be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate, " unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse oi the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority." The Speaker said that in view of the fact that it was the first time a closure motion had been applied while he was presiding over the proceedings of the House, he thought it desirable to define his attitude. He could not regard the motion as an abuse of the rules of the House, as it was the fifth sitting devoted to the second reading debate on th* bill. He had a precedent for that ruling in a decision of his immediate predecessor, who had allowed a closure motion after three second reading sittings. He did not consider that the motion infringed the rights of the minority. None of the members of the Opposition who had refrained from speaking on the main question, had spoken since the amendment had been moved. All the speakers to the amendment had been members who had spoken previously in the debate. In those circumstances, concluded the Speaker, ho would allow the motion to be put. The closure was in effect the declaration of political war and Opposition members immediately called for a division. The closure was carried by 50 votes to 20. Within a few minutes the division bells were again ringing, the Opposition having chosen to divide the House on Mr. Hamilton's amendment, which was rejected by 52 votes to 20. The Speakeh then put the question that the bill should be read a second time, and once again a division was called for. the third within a quarter of an hour. THE SECOND READING GOVERNMENT'S BIG MAJORITY DETAILS OF THE VOTING [by telegraph—special reporter] WELLINGTON, Wednesday The Government had a majority of 32 in the division on the second reading of the Primary Products Marketing Bill in the House of Representatives to-day. The voting was as follows: — For the Bill (52) Anderton McDougall Armstrong McMillan Atmore Martin Barnes Mason Barrell Meac-hen C. H. Burnett Moncur Campbell Munro Carr Nash Chapman Nordmeyer Christie Parry Cotterill Petrie Coulter Ratana Cullen Richards Fraser Roberts Herring Robertson Hodgens Rush worth Howard Savage Hultquist Schramm Hunter Semple Jones Sexton Jordan Sullivan Langstone Thorn Lee Tirikatena Lowry Webb Lyon Williams McCombs Wilson Against the Bill (20) Bodkin Holland Broadfoot Holyoake T. D. Burnett Kyle Coates u Ngata Cobbe * Poison Dickie Ransom Endean Roy Forbes Smith Hamilton Wilkinson Hargest Wright CHANGES PROPOSED NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS MOVE BY MR. A. C. A. SEXTON [by telegraph—special reporter] WELLINGTON, Wednesday Notice of amendments to the Primary Products Marketing Bill which will be moved in committee by Mr. A. C. A. Sexton (Independent—Franklin) was given in a supplementary order paper issued in the House of Representatives to-night. As an addition to the clause providing for the annual report and accounts of tho Department of Marketing to be presented to Parliament Mr. Sexton desires the provision of a detailed statement as to how the prices for dairy produce were determined. Mr. Sexton also desires an alteration in the powers proposed to be given to the Governor-General to fix dairy prices by Order-in-Council, and proposes an amendment that before prices are fixed there should be an investigation and report by an independent authority. Mr. Sexton also intends to introduce an amendment providing for the price to be fixed on the average of the last 15 years instead of the last eight to ten years. With regard to price fixation in future years, under which it is provided that the cost involved in the efficient production of dairy produce must bo taken into consideration, Mr. Sexton seeks to include in the computation of costs a return to the farmer on his capital commensurate with tho returns obtained in business enterprises generally. He also proposes to introduce as a. further consideration for future price fixations the difference betweeu the price level in the country in which dairy produce is marketed and the price level in New Zealand.