THE BIG STONEWALL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3115, 26 November 1913, Page 48

THE BIG STONEWALL.

SECOND BALLOT BLOCKADE. DETERMINED OPPOSITION STAND. {From Odb Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, November 20. , That the Opposition are determined to block by every possible means the passage of the proposed clause in the Legislature Act Amendment Bill repealing the second ballot principle was amply shown by the stand made this afternoon, when the time came for notices of motion to be presented. Practically every member of the Opposition rose in succession and intimated his intention of moving amendments to the Bill mentioned 'Vixen it was in committee. In many cases the members read the lengthy amendments through, and this necessarily took up a great deal of time. Mr M’Callum created a ripple of interest by .coolly saying that he intended to move 72 amendments —“ all important, and many of far-reaching effect.” the House, and he based his action on a ruling of the Speaker.. After some further debate backwards and forwards the Speaker said he was prepared to rule. The position, he believed, was as it was at first stated. It was a very unusual procedure. He took it that Mr Speaker O’Rourke’s ruling held, and he therefore ruled that an hon. member could move the adjournment of the House, but he must keep strictly to the question of adjournment and not debate any other matter at all In the old days it was the practice for any member to get up in the middle of questions and move the adjournment, but that was not the case now. He thought a member would be in order in moving the adjournment of the House, hut he must keep strictly to the question of adjournment and not introduce any other matter at all. The Prime Minister immediately rose and suggested that as this was a very important matter the Speaker should take time to consider the proposal. After some further talk the Speaker said that there was only one matter of doubt in his mind, and that was as to whether a private member could move the adjournment. He could not find any standing order to enable them to do so, although at tlie same time he could not see any order which prevented them from doing so. He was certain, however, that if it could he done discussion would have to be confined to the question of adjournment. Under the circumstances, however, he would suggest that the House should allow him to reserve his decision on the point in doubt. Sir Joseph Ward then suggested that consideration of the Bill should be deferred till the next day, as if they went into committee they might not get into the House again for a month or six weeks. At this Mr Massey made some interjection, which, though inaudible in the press gallery, afterwards appeared to the effect ” you will find out to the contrary.” Sir Joseph Ward retorted : “I am surprised to find the Prime Minister suggesting that something unusual will be done to us.” Did Mr Massey, he suggested, propose to influence the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees? All they wanted was strict impartiality and no collusion of any sort. Mr Massey retorted that what he meant was that the hon. gentleman had not a full and proper knowledge of the standing orders. There were standing orders of which he had never heard, but of which he would hear before long. Mr Massey closed

by denying that he had ever brought any pressure to bear upon either the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. He would be the last one to do so. A LITTLE TIFF. Both the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees denied that any influence at all on the. part of the Government was brought to bear on them. While Mr Malcolm was making this declaration Mr Hanan interjected; ‘‘l have heard -them prompting you in committee. Can you deny it?- - ’ Mr Malcolm repeated that never in any way had the Government attempted to influence him. Mr Massey immediately called attention to this interjection, which was one of which notice had to be taken. Mr Hanan volunteered to repeat what he had said. This was, he claimed: “ Have Ministers in committee prompted you?” An uproar of “ No, no ” came from the "Government benches at this, but Mr Hanan repeated that this was what he had said. , Mr Massey said he would ask the Speaker to call Mr Hanan to order, or call upon him for an explanation. Mr Hanan repeated his explanation, and asserted that it had been cast in the interrogative form. Mr Malcolm, when appealed to, said that his impression was that Mr Hanan said, “ I have heard them doing it in. committee.” He did at times, he added, converse with Ministers, but not on points of order. The matter was allowed to drop. TEDIOUS REPETITIONS BARRED. WELLINGTON, Novembel 23. After the Telegraph Office closed .yesr-i~-day morning nothing of importance occurred till 8 a.m., when a brisk passage-of-arms took place between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the question of the length of the adjournment in connection with the funeral of the late Mr Laurenson and in regard to the stonewall itself. The House adjourned a few minutes after 8. During the forenoon many members attended the funeral of the late Mr Laurenson. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m., and the whole of the afternoon .was spent in “ discussing ” a motion to report progress, This “ discussion ” was continued at 7.30 p.m. The stonewall was still proceeding at 11.52 p.m., when the Chairman left the chair and stated that he would resume it at 2.30 p.m. on Monday. WELLINGTON, November 24. The consideration of the Legislature Act Amendment Bill (to which a new clause providing for the repeal of the second ballot has now been added), which was stonewalled tor about 50 hours last week, was advaucd a stage in the House to-day. SECOND BALLOT REPEAL MOVED. The Hon. Mr Fisher, the Minister in charge of the Bill, moved a new clause providing for the repeal of the second ballot. CLAUSE READ A SECOND TIME. The speech making on the motion for the second reading of the new clause broke down five minutes after the House resumed after the supper adjournment. A division was then taken, with the result that the motion was carried by 36 votes to 26. The following was the division list : Ayes (36) —Bell, J. Bollard, R. F. Bollard, Bradney, Buick, Campbell, Coates, Dickson, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Herdman, Merries, Hunter, Lee, Mander, Massey, A. K. Newman, E. Newman, Nosworthv, Okev. Pearce, Pomare, Reed, R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Scott, F. H. Smith. Statham, Sykes, G. M. Thomson, Wilkinson, Wilson, Young. Noes (26) —Atmore, Brown, Buxton, Car-, roll, Colvin, Craigie, Davev, Ell, Glover, H anan, Hindmarsh, M'Callum, MacDonald, Ngata, Parata, Payne, Poland, Raugihiroa, Robertson, missel I, Seddon, R. W. Smith, Veitch, Ward, VMib, Witty. Pairs —Ayes: Anderson, Allen, Buchanan, Hine. Noes: Wilford, Bnddo, Forbes, isitt. Mr Ngata then said he wished to move that progress be reported. The Chairman : Considering all the circumstances, 1 must regard such u motion as being moved in a spirit of mockery, and I cannot accept it. Mr Ngata : Well, then, I move that you do leave the chair. Is that in order? The Chairman : I must rule that out of order in the same way. The debate on the question that this clause be a clause of the Bill was then taken, Mr Malcolm stating that discussion on this motion would be allowed to a reasonable extent. Mr Russell, in condemning the new clause, said that both the New Zealand Herald and the Otago Daily Times, papers supporting the Government, and two of the ablest journals in New Zealand, had declared against the Cabinet’s action in this matter. He said that the Government might get the Bill thx-ough before the session closed, but it was not through yet.