LABOUR TABLES " MORE AMENDMENTS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 76, 30 March 1931, Page 5

LABOUR TABLES " MORE AMENDMENTS.

DEBATE LASTS TILL MIDNIGHT SATURDAY. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 30. Labour speakers kept up their stonewalling tactics till midnight on Saturday, when the House adjourned till 2.30 p.m. to-day. When the House resumed at 2.30 p.m. on Saturday the debate on the Prime Minister’s motion was continued. The Hon H. Atmore maintained that the principles of Liberalism were not being departed from. Mr Fletcher (Independent, Grey Lynn) described the proposal as the most drastic ever put before a body of men. There-had been complaints about the obstruction of the minority but the minority was usually right. Mr Savage (Labour, Auckland West) contended that it .was only a bald proposition at best. There was no control over it at all. Mr Forbes: .Wouldn’t the majority decide? Mr Savage: The majority will have to walk into the lobby until it is tired. If r the Prime Minister wants that sort of exercise he will get it. Mr Sullivan (Avon): Hear! Hear! We will give him plenty. Mr Clyde Carr (Labour, Timaru) submitted that a leader of the House who used closure methods was like a boxer who entered the ring with a .piece of lead pipe concealed about his person, to use as a last resort. Mr Black (Independent, Motueka) declared that the matter was so important that it should be considered by the Standing Orders Committee of the House. It was a constitutional issue and the rights of Parliament and future parliamentarians should be guarded carefully. Mr Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs ) contended that although nominally the closure would depend on the will of the House it would actually depend on the will of the Prime Minister, because the majority would vote as he wanted them to vote and not as they wanted individually to do. He moved an amendment expressing the opinion that the proposed alteration should be referred to a special committee on the same lines as alterations to the standing orders had been dealt with in the past. Mr Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) seconded the amendment. He said that the closure in New. Zealand would be worse than in Australia, because New Zealand had not got a majority Government. The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. Mr Coates’s Suggestion. Proceedings in the evening opened ominously with the circulation of five more Labour amendments to the motion while tfie first amendment, referring it to a committee, was under dis- • cussion. Mr Coates, leader of the Opposition, made a friendly effort to brjng the deadlock to an end, submitting suggest tions which he the Prime Minister to consider and not deal with immediately. He referred to an English Parliamentary authority who held that a closure motion must not be an abuse of the privileges of the House nor ah infringement of the rights of minorities, and that the motion must be subject to the discretion of the chair. This, he suggested, should be applied to the motion under debate. That it

m u w is m ts si m ® m u® m in ® u m m m u i would be adopted ultimately he had no doubt, for it was essential that the Standing Orders should contain some form of closure. He would also suggest that it would be wise to confine the present proposal to the duration of this Parliament. Mr Mason (Auckland Suburbs): That is a Ned Kelly proposition. Other Labourites also commented loudly, causing Mr Speaker to warn them that he would be obliged to name some member for constant interruption. Mr M’Combs (Lyttelton) proceeded with a speech which was obviously designed to complete his full time on the amendment. He prefaced it by the comment that the • proposal from the leader- of the Opposition that Mr Speaker should have some power of discretion over closure motions was due to the education Mr Coates had received from Labour speakers, w T ho first advocated it, but his suggestion to limit . the closure to this Parliament was monstrous. It was to apply only to the Labour Party’this session. “I don’t know whether the leader of the Opposition is not more unsportsmanlike than the Prime Minister, who wants to change , the rules in the middle of, the game,” he said. Adequate Safeguards. Mr; .Jones (Reform, Mid-Canterbury) assured the House that Reform wished to provide adequate safeguards, reasonable proposals which the House could adopt without loss of dignity if it wished to get. on with business. Mr Jordan (Labour, Maruikau): We don’t want to get on with this business.' Mr Jones: Labour’s policy is if it has not sufficient grievances it loses caste with its own people. To agree with this would lose a grievance. Mr Clinkard (United, Rotorua) said the Parliamentary machine had become unworkable and required an overhaul. It had degenerated into a talking shop, according to the man in the street. There had been plenty of freedom of speech, but no freedom of action. Nothing had been done. Drastic Medicine. Mr Poison (Independent, Stratford) stated that a situation had arisen requiring drastic medicine. The majority must rule, and it never was a principle of Liberalism to allow the rights of majorities to be overridden. Mr Seddon would never have tolerated the deliberate obstruction experienced during a whole week. The country’s situation demanded immediate action. Labour members seemed to have forgotten why, the session had been called, though serious delay jn legislating might easily create disaster. “It is unfair to swop horses when crossing a stream," concluded Mr Poison. “We must carry on and support the Government in getting its measures through." Mr Lysnar (Independent, Gisborne) urged Labour to give the other parties a hand in a serious emergency. He could see the possibility of twenty speeches on each of six amendments. Mr Jordan: There are sixteen. Mr Lysnar: That makes it worse. It was, he. said, very wrong to abuse privileges . under present conditions, when every day meant further suffering for the farmers. At 11- p.m. the House divided on Mr Mason's amendment, which was negatived by 44 to 24, Messrs Harris, Wilkinson, Hogan and Black voting with Labour. Another Amendment. Mr Langstone (Labour, Waimarino) moved an amendment designed to prevent the closure being applied while a member was speaking. ll e accused the Government of trying to assume the role of “little Mussolinis,” and likened them: to a football team which, when

being defeated, wanted to change the rules to enable it to obtain all the free kicks. Mr Sullivan: Yes, under the posts. Mr Langstone: I doubt whether they would be able to kick them over even then. The amendment was seconded by Mr Parry (Labour, Auckland Central), who said the right of a minority was the safety valve of revolution. The debate was interrupted by the arrival of midnight. The House adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Monday.