A GOVERNMENT DEFEAT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19667, 8 December 1933, Page 8

A GOVERNMENT DEFEAT

MEASURE REFUSED URGENCY INTERESTING SERIES OF INCIDENTS By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, December 7. An endeavour by the Prime Minister to secure urgency for the passage of the Gaming Amendment Bill produced an interesting series of incidents culminating with the first defeat of a Government motion for some time in the House of Representatives this afternoon. The loudest cheering and most vigorous applause heard in the House in recent times greeted Mr Speaker’s announcement that the motion for urgency for the Bill had been defeated by 36 votes to 34. Above the tumult and laughter, Labour members exclaimed, "Resign. The first opposition to the Bill came when Mr Forbes moved that consideration of Parliamentary papers should be postponed until after the Orders of the Day.

Mr P. Fraser (Lab.. Wellington Central) protested against this proposal, declaring that the Prime Minister was trifling with the House. He asked why the Gaming Amendment Bill should be considered before, for instance. Mr W. J. Poison’s Meat Export Control Amendment Bill which had been introduced on the first day of the session. He further contended that the motion would deprive the House of the opportunity of discussing the departmental reports. "And I might pause here to observe,” he said, “that they apparently require discussion and close scrutiny." Mr E. J. Howard (Lab., Christchurcn South): Hear, hear, that is the point Mr J. A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn) said that among other things he wanted particularly to discuss was the report on Samoa. This could not be done satisfactorily when the Estimates were before the House, because on that occasion members were not permitted, under the Standing Orders, to discuss policy. Surely members should be given an opportunity to discuss departmental policy as well as accounts. The defence policy was another matter that required discussion. For two hours members spoke in opposition to the Prime Minister’s motion. submitting instances of business which, in their opinion, should precede consideration of the Gaming Amendment Bill. “I Don’t Care What Happens.” Mr Forbes, replying, said that the Gaming Amendment Bill had only three clauses and could be dealt with in one hour if members would allow it to go to a division. The fact that a minority could prevent a Bill from reaching its decisive stage was damaging to the prestige of Parliament. It seemed ihat there were a number of members who desired to speak one way but did not desire to vote that way, and who therefore used every endeavour to prevent a division being taken. T don’t care what happens to this Bill.” Mr Forbes said, “but let us get to the division on it and then get on with our business.” Mr W. J. Poison (C., Stratford), rising to a point of order, asked why nis Bill should be number 29 on the Order Paper when the Gaming Amendment Bill, on which there had been other opportunities for discussion, was again placed No. 1. "I don’t object to this Bill being dealt with.” he said, "but I want fair play for mine. My Bill has only one clause and could be disposed of in two minutes. It has already been approved by a committee of this House.”

Mr Forbes said that responsible organisations throughout New Zealand had asked for an opportunity to be given for Parliament to deal decisively with the Gaming Bill. "That is why it is at the top of the Order Paper,” he said. Mr Forbes added that he had received no such representations in favour of Mr Poison’s Bill. The Prime Minister then moved for urgency for the Gaming Bill, and was greeted with cries of protest.

In What Capacity? Mr Fraser, on a point of order, asked whether Mr Forbes was moving for urgency in his private capacity or as a member of the Government. Mr Forbes said that he was acting as a mrmber of the Government. M mbers: Then this is a Government Bill. Mr Howard pointed out that Mr Forbes, in asking for urgency, had not given his reasons for doing so as required tyy the Standing Orders. Mr P’orbes: I gave all the reasons *n my speech before moving for urgency Mr Speaker said that he was afraid the stipulation that reasons should be given was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If the motion were ruled out It was quite clear that the Prime Minister w'ould simply move for urgency again and give his reasons for doing so. He thought that the position could best be met by the Prime Minister stating his reasons. Mr Forbes: I wish to see Parliament in a position to function as a Parliament so that a Bill when it is before the House will not be prevented from reaching the division by those who desire to prevent the division being taken. Mr W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau) submitted that Mr Forbes had not shown that urgency was required in the public interest as stipulated by the Standing Orders. Mr Forbes: I think that it is In the public interest that any public matter submitted to Parliament should be allowed to come to the decisive stage. I have given an undertaking to those important organisations which have approached me that that will be done. Another Point of Order. Mr W. Nash (Lab., Hutt), on a further point of order, explained that he had been paired with Mr H. G. Dickie on the Gaming Bill. Mr Dickie was not in the House and he asked what was his own position. Should he vote on the motion before the House? Mr Speaker said that as Mr Nash was in the House after the doors had been locked he would have to vote. The usual procedure would be for Mr Nash to vote as his "pair” would have voted. Mr Nash asked whether "pairing” on the Bill applied to voting on the division on the question of urgency for that Bill. Mr Speaker said he could not advise Mr Nash on that point. He would have to leave it to the member’s own conscience. IMr Nash voted in favour of the motion—as Mr Dickie had intended to vote.] The Division List. For the motion (34): Bitchener Llnklater Bodkin MacMillan Broadfoot Macpherson Campbell J. N. Massey Clinkard Murdoch Coates J. A. Nash Cobbc W. Nash Connolly Ngata Perrclle Ransom Endean Relcl Field Smith Forbes A. Stuart

Hamilton Sykes Hrirgest Te Tomo Heuly Veitch Holyoake Williams Jull Young Against the motion (36): An sell McKeen Armstrong McSkimming Atmore Mason Barnard Munro Carr Parry Chapman Poison CoJeman Richards Fraser Rushworlh Hawke Samuel H. Holland Savage Howard Schramm Jones Semple Jordan Stailworthy Kyle Stewart Langstone Sullivan Lee Tlrlkatene Lye Webb McCombs Wright When the House resumed at 7 p.m. Mr Healey asked for leave to withdraw his Gaming Amendment Bill. He ■ Minister for his action in carrying out hLs word to the representatives of the Racing and Trotting Conferences, country racing clubs, racing men an i members of the public who had signed petitions presented to the House on the subject. Tin* Bill was thereupon withdrawn.