ADVERSE VOTE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18266, 8 December 1933, Page 7

ADVERSE VOTE

REBUFF FOR GOVERNMENT AN UNUSUAL POSITION GAMING BILL WRANGLE PREMIER SEEKS URGENCY (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Two exciting incidents, including the defeat of a Government motion, were witnessed in the House yesterday afternoon, following one of the most tiresome debates of the session. They had an important bearing on the fate of Mr. E. F. Healy's Gaming Amendment Bill, foi it was subsequently withdrawn. Opponents of the measure followed the familiar plan of talking as much as possible on other subjects, so as to delay the debate on the Gaming Bill, which, according to the order paper, was to be resumed at that sitting. 'They found a good topic in the motion which the Prime Minister moved to reach the measure as early as possible by postponing consideration of Parliamentary papers. This is a daily formality, ami over 100 papers await consideration, but the stonewallers’ opportunity was too good to miss, and right through the afternoon opponents of the Gaming Bill exercised a new-found zeal for the consideration of Parliamentary papers Ijy explaining in as discursive, a manner as possible their objection to ignoring them on this particular afternoon. DIVISION- FORCED They were quite satisfied a few minutes before the adjournment to permit the motion to be carried, but there was consternation when the Prime Minister quietly moved that urgency be accorded the passage of the Gaming Amendment “Not on your life,” shouted a Labor member, and this protest was supported by roars of “Noes.” Consequently, a division had to he taken When the doors had been closed for the division, members could not formally address the chair, but by sitting down informally they were able to submit points‘to Mr. Speaker, reflecting the tense feeling which had arisen through the Government’s unexpected and unprecedented action. Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington C.) : submitted that when urgency was claim- : ed for the measure, standing orders were explicit that the motion must he moved i by a Minister. I i“T would like to know,” lie added, whether the Prime Minister was acting - in the capacity of a private member or on behalf of the Government, as the standing order provides.” The Prime Minister: Yes, I did. That settles that. Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland 0): 1 It is a Government bill then. ' Mr. E. .T. Howard (Lab., Christchurch 1 S.) raised another point, that the Prime Minister had not complied with standing 1 orders because lie failed to submit rea- t sons for urgency. i

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST A member: Because it is getting near Christmas. Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that rule is more honored in the breach than in the observance. If I ruled the motion out of order, the Prime Minister would simplv move it again, and I suggest that the Prime Minister give his reasons now. Mr. Forbes responded to the invitation, declaring, amid loud expressions of dissent: “I wish to see Parliament able to function as a Parliament, so that a bill which comes before the House will not be prevented from being brought to a division by the tactics of those who wish to prevent a decision being arrived at, which is entirely against the functions of Parliament as a Parliament. Urgency is moved so that a decision can be given on it." ‘“But standing orders say it must be in the public interest,” protested Mr. W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau). “It is in the public interest that a matter submitted to Parliament should come to a decision,” retorted the Prime Minister. He had, he said, given an undertaking to important organisations who had asked him to bring the matter forward, and it had become urgent, for, at this time of the session, when time was being deliberately wasted, members were anxious to deal with it, because there were more important matters to follow. MEMBER’S DILEMMA An entertaining interlude was provided by Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Hutt), a strong opponent of the Gaining Bill, who had faired with Mr. H. G. Dickie (Coal., ’atea), a supporter. Mr. Nash had unintentionally found himself obliged to vote because the closing of the doors for the division found him within the Chamber. Be asked Mr. Speaker to advise as to a way out of His dilemma. Mr. Speaker: An lion, member finding himself inside the door should vote as the hon. member for Patea would have voted. (Loud laughter.) Mr. Nash: I submit that it is a vote on urgency, and not on the bill. Mr. Speaker: I must leave that to the hon. gentleman’s conscience. lam not preDared to advise him. (Laughter.) Then the division proceeded, and when Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Wnima-i-itiob an opponent of the bill, came from the lobby excitedly waving Ins arms, he was surro inded by congratulatory colleagues. The Jesuit was the defeat of the urgency motion by 36 votes to 34, and the victors cheered heartily, those who participated in the demonstration comprising the Opposition, a number of crossbench members, and some Government supporters.

Labor members emphasised the position. Mr. J. A. Lee (Labor. Grey Lvnn) shontimr. “Resign! Resign!” while*Mr. Jordan interjected. ‘‘Get out!” and Mr. Howard advised the Government “to get out no.w.” The Prime Minister smiled across at them, apparently quite unperturbed, for the issue had not been one of no-confi-dence in the Government THE DIVISION TEST The division list was as follows: For the motion (34): Kitchener, Bodkin, Broadfoot, Campbell, CJinkard, Coates, Cotibe, Connolly, De la Perelle, fudean, Field, Forbes, Hamilton, Healy. argesC Holyoake, Jnll, Linklater, Macmiffari, Macpberson, J. N. Massey, Murdoch, J. A. Nash, W. Nash, Ngata, Hansom, Iteid, Smith, Stuart, Sykes, l’e Tomo, Veitch, Williams, and Young. Against the motion (36): Ansell, Armstrong, Atniore, Barnard, Carr, Chapman, Coleman, Fraser, Hawke, 11. Holland. Howard, Jones, Jordan, Kyle, Lee, Lanestone, Lye, McCombs, Me Keen, ;M''!- : mminfr, Mason, Munro, Parry, Poison. Richards, Rushworth. Samuel, Savage. Schramm, Semple, Stallworthy, Stevynrt. Sullivan, Tirikatene, Wright, and Webb.

When the House resumed, Mr. Healv asked.leave to withdraw the bill. He said.he wished to thank the Prime Minister for his action in carrying out his word to those who had signed the petitions presented to the Hijuse.