DISCUSSION IN HOUSE

Southland Times, Issue 23378, 9 December 1937, Page 6

DISCUSSION IN HOUSE

MOTION TO ADJOURN TRANSPORT OF COUNTRY’S PRODUCTS (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, December 8. Whether the situation on the Auckland waterfront was sufficiently serious to justify an adjournment of the House of Representatives so that it could be discussed gave rise to a spirited argument in the House today. Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford) moved that the House should adjourn so that the situation could be discussed, but the argument was immediately taken up by the Minister of Marine (the Hon. P. Fraser), who contended that the matter was not urgent. After a great deal of argument the Speaker (the Hon. W. E. Barnard) said he did not think he would be justified in ruling the motion out of order. The House then proceeded to discuss the question. When Mr Polson moved his motion Mr Fraser contended that it did not conform with the Standing Orders, as the subject of such . a motion was required to be of definite public - importance. He believed the dispute at Auckland had been settled and in that case there was no question of urgency. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipapa) said he thought the Minister of Marine had rather missed the point. It was a question whether the position would be much altered even if there had been a settlement for the moment, because the transport of the country’s products overseas was a matter of urgent importance to every person in the Dominion. If there were unexpected hold-ups that must be a matter of urgent public concern. “I would draw attention in the first place to the fact that this motion applies to Auckland, and not to the general question of waterfront work,” said the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon M. J. Savage). Mr Coates: But is Auckland not rather the whole shooting match? “This subject has been frequently discussed in the House,” Mr Savage continued, “and I think the privilege extended by Standing Orders is meant to apply to things that develop suddenly, such as a declaration of war, for instance, and for which there is no other opportunity of discussion. We would never get any business done if members were allowed to move an adjournment of the House to discuss general questions. The motion is based on a dispute that is not in existence at present.” The Attorney-General (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) submitted that the purpose of the Standing Order relating to adjournments of the House was to provide an opportunity for the discussion of an urgent matter which could not otherwise be conveniently discussed. The question could have been very conveniently raised on the Appropriation Bill passed early that morning. “The Appropriation Bill was passed merely by leave of the House,” said Mr S. G. Smith (Nat., New Plymouth) “and it is wrong to suggest that ' it is not proper for this motion to be brought forward now.” The Speaker said he did not think he would be justified at the moment in preventing Mr Polson from proceeding with his motion, but if the necessity arose he would be prepared to accept a motion that would terminate the debate.

After Mr Polson had moved the adjournment, a long debate developed in which the Government’s side of the argument was handled exclusively by members of the Cabinet. It was freely admitted that the men responsible for causing the dispute had been in the wrong and Ministers expressed agreement with the contention that some improvement would have to be made in the organization of waterfront work.

The motion was talked out at the dinner adjournment.