USE OF THE CLOSURE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21627, 23 April 1932, Page 9

USE OF THE CLOSURE

LABOUR. MEMBERS RESENTFUL . “RIGHTS OF MINORITY INFRINGED.” (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, April 22. The improper use of the closure was alleged against Mr Smith, Chairman of Committees, this afternoon, when Labour members became annoyed at the Governnient's persistent employment of tins method of restricting debate. The clause in the Adjustment Bill dealing with South African veterans’ pensions had been discussed by only a few speakers when Mr Forbes moved the closure, which Mr Smith applied without hesitation. As the closure had been applied to clause after clause throughout the day, Mr M'Cotnbs immediately rose and moved to report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on what was regarded as an unreasonable use of the closure. He said that on a previous occasion the Speaker had not considered two hours as an unreasonable time to spend on a clause. The Prime Minister had shown the utmost confusion as to the meaning of the clause and only a few members had been allowed to apeak. The business was not being conducted in a reasonable or rational manner and the rights of the minority were clearly being infringed. All the Government had to do was to put anyone in the chair to relieve the Chairman of Committees, and this deputy could over-rule the. Standing Orders. ... Mr Fraser said there was a danger of mishandling the closure motion, the purpose of which was to facilitate business and not to suppress discussion. The minority had to stand up for its rights and it had to be clearly understood that the closure was inserted in the Standing Orders with a promise that. there would be no curtailment of discussions.

Mr Sullivan said that only seven members could speak in. the time allowed. The Prime Minister said that no attempt had so far been made to curtail the rights of members, but the House had listened to wearing speeches for hour after hour and no Bill had- been discussed so freely. Mr Semple: We have never had a Bill like it before.

Mr Holland said that the adjournment for lunch having been refused, only a few members at a time could leave the chamber for a meal. He had gone for lunch leaving others of his party in the chamber, and while he was away the closure had been applied. The Prime Minister: I have not had my lunch yet. ' Mr Lee: At no stage of this Bill has this clause been discussed. The Prime Minister: You have had plenty of time. Mr Semple said that, extraordinary circumstances were obtaining at the time and the Prime Minister had uo right to move the closure. The motion to report progress was lost by 44 votes to 26, and the Labour Party made repeated • attempts to get the Speaker’s ruling on various points of order. The chairman, however, was adamant and refused to accept the motions on the ground that the question had beendisposed of by the defeat of the proposal to report progress. Mr M'Combs could not oven move the chairman with an appeal on behalf of the “ desperately hungry members ” who had gone without their dinner and the committee was forced to go on to the next clause.