HOUSE ADOPTS CLOSURE MOTION

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 77, 31 March 1931, Page 15

HOUSE ADOPTS CLOSURE MOTION

STONEWALL ENDS AT EARLY HOUR TO-DAY. (Special to the “ St*r ") WELLINGTON, March 31. The closure is now part of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and will remain in operation during the currency of the present Parliament. This is the result of a decision reached by the House early this morning* following a succession of dramatic incidents. The sitting of the House of Representatives which was interrupted by the adjournment at midnight on Saturday, was resumed at 2.30 on Monday. The Prime Minister said he was not opposed to the suggestion made by Mr Langstone that it should not be permissible for the closure to be applied while a member was speaking, and he was prepared to accept the amendment. It was desirable that a member’s speech should not be cut in half. The amendment was agreed to on the voices. Mr Sullivan (Labour, Avon) then moved a further amendment to exclude the application of the closure if it should appear to the chair that such a motion was an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of a minority. Mr Sullivan said that there had been no suggestion to applj r the closure when in. 1929 the Reform Party held up the passage of legislation because it sought to protect the interests of large land owners. Now, however, that the Labour Party was fighting on behalf of the lower paid wprkers, the Government desired to introduce such a drastic instrument. He thought the Government should be able to stand up to the opposition as its predecessors had done. “Tklk Shop.** Mr Howard (Labour, Christchurch South), in seconding the amendment, said Mr Clinkard, speaking on Saturday, had implied it was disgraceful for Parliament to be referred to as a “talk shop.” Mr Howard stated that the word "Parliament” had been derived from a French root, and had originally been spelt “Parletoent.** Its derivation from the verb "parler” justified the view that Parliament was a place for speaking, and while he disliked the word "shop,” he considered there was nothing derogatory in the description "talk shop." Another Amendment Accepted. The Prime Minister said that the great thing about the closure would be the manner in which it was adminHe said that the adoption of a motion to close a debate would depend on a majority decision of the House, and., as it had been so frequently pointed out that the present Government was a minority one, members’ minds should therefore be at rest. There was nothing undemocratic about a motion that depended on a majority decision. It was more undemocratic to prevent by interminable talk a majority decision being He had no objection to the amendment moved by Mr Sullivan or to the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition. It was quite wise to leave to the Speaker to decide whether the purpose of the debate had been served. Mr H. E, Holland, leader of the Labour Party* said that the Prime Minister’s second capitulation amounted to an admission that the motion as originally drawn was wrong,, and that the Labour Party's arguments were right. He did not see any need for the addition suggested by Mr Coates. He asked whether the Prime Minister would use the closure only for preventing disci* si on on amendments orfor preventing amendments being moved. Mr Forbwhad talked a lot of nonsense, about business of the House being held up. One would think that Mr Forbes had never in his history taken part in any hold-up in the House. It was only now, when-he was-in office, that hp seemed to think the Opposition had no right to-hold up legislation which it regarded as objectionable. Mr Sullivan’s amendment was adopted on the voices.

Amendments Defeated. Following the supper adjournment, Mr Nash (Labour, Hutt) moved an amendment designed to limit the application of the closure to committee proceedings, and to ensure that a majority of the House should vote before the question was put. The amendment was seconded by Mr Chapman (Labour, Wellington North), who suggested that if the Government found it could not get its legislative proposals through it had the alternative of appealing to the country instead of introducing the closure, which was an admission that it had been defeated. On a division the amendment was rejected by 50 to 24. A further amendment by Mr M’Keen (Labour, Wellington South) suffered a similar fate. By 47 to 22 the House rejected an amendment moved by Mr M’Keen (Labour, Wellington South), proposing that only the Speaker or Chairman of Committees should have power to enforce the new standing order. At 12.30 a.m. Mr Young (Reform, Hamilton) moved a new clause with the idea of making the closure applicable to the present Parliament only. If the experiment proved a success it would, he said, be competent for the new Parliament to adopt it permanently. The amendment was seconded by Mr Kyle (Reform, Riccarton.) Not a No-confidence Test. The Prime Minister said that, as the House seemed unanimous, he was prepared to accept the amendment. (Loud Labour laughter.) He had had no intention of regarding the closure motion as a no-confidence test. His main object was to get his legislative proposals through the House, and the next Parliament could look after itself. Mr Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central ) said that the Government’s action meant forging a weapon of tyranny against Labour only, and Mr Forbes’s acceptance of the amendment was another step towards the degeneration of the United Party. “ I don’t know that any party could sink lower than they have sunk," Mr Fraser added. Closure Motion Carried. The Prime Minister replied to the debate at 2 a.m., and was subjected to severe Labour interjections. Mr Speaker threatened to name several members if they persisted. Mr Forbes stated that the closure would not have been introduced had it not been for the obstruction of the Finance Bill. Once that measure was passed, he hoped that the use of the closure could be discarded. He assured the House that it would be put into operation onl}*- when it was necessary. There was a sharp brush between the Prime Minister and Mr O’Brien (Westland) just before Mr Forbes sat down. "It is an attack on the workers’ wage: why not cal! it by its proper name?” interjected Mr O’Brien. The Prime Minister (sharply): It is not: it is for the protection of the workers’ wage. There was uproar from the Labour

benches, Mr M'Combs shouting, “ llum- ( bug! Humbug!" at the top of his voice. On a division, the closure motion was carried by 48 votes to 21.