PARLIAMENT MAY BE LENGTHENED?

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 77, 31 March 1931, Page 5

PARLIAMENT MAY BE LENGTHENED?

LABOUR MEMBERS FEAR FINANCIAL INFLUENCES.

(Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON, March 30. The suggestion that if the closure motion were agreed to, steps would be taken by the Government, with the support of the Reform Party, to force a Bill through extending the life of Parliament for two years, was made in the House to-night by Mr W. Nash (Labour, Hutt). “I suggest,” said Mr Nash, “that there will be an arrangement between the two parties, and that the closure will be applied to the measure. That will probably lead to continuing this Parliament for another two years. I suggest that there are two parties in the House which fear to go to the country, and are anxious to keep their seats in this house.” Mr Speaker: I am afraid the hon ipember is imputing improper motives. Mr Nash: There is a possibility that after this session is over the two parties will be fighting together for the purpose of continuing this Parliament. The position to-day is that we have a Government that is definitely putting legislation through which is opposed entirely, absolutely and completely to the legislation they advocated when they claimed the votes of the electors. In the last six months they have accepted the policy of the party they set out to defeat at the last election. Mr Nash also drew attention to a Press cablegram that financiers in London were watching the progress of the legislation through the House. “I want to suggest,” he said, “that if it is necessary to move the closure to enable our legislation to be written in London, then there is something wrong with our democratic system in New Zealand. There is nothing worse than the suggestion that financiers in London are watching this legislation, and that their future actions will be guided by the result of the division.” Mr Poison: These men are entitled to do what they like with their own money. Mr Nash: That may be so, but we should see to it that our legislation is not written in London. There could be nothing more sinister than such a suggestion. ______________