LABOUR MEMBERS WALK OUT DURING DEBATE IN HOUSE

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 77, 31 March 1931, Page 7

LABOUR MEMBERS WALK OUT DURING DEBATE IN HOUSE

Bitter Protest At Closure Rule Being Restricted To Present Parliament. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, March 31. A DRAMATIC CLIMAX marked the adoption by the House early this morning of the Government’s closure motion, when, claiming that they were the victims of political subterfuge, the Labour Party bodily left the chamber in preference to voting for the Reform amendment limiting the operation of the new Standing Order to the life of the present Parliament. Events moved swiftly after the fifth and final Labour amendment had been disposed of at 12.45 a.m. Mr J. A. Young (Reform, Hamilton) raised a storm in the Labour camp by proposing the limitation referred to, and the Prime Minister’s intimation that he would accept the amendment was followed by a bitter exchange of party recriminations.

Criticisnk became harsher with each Labour speech, and a sensation was caused by Mr H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East), who, speaking under considerable emotion, shouted: “ We will leave the dirty business to the dirty people who moved it.” The remarks were withdrawn at the instance of Mr Speaker. The Chamber was barren of Labour members when the Reform amendment was put, and it was expected that the proposal would be carried on the voices. A challenge, however, came from two Government members, Messrs T. W. M’Donald (Wairarapa) and D. M’Dougall (Mataura), and the Government were forced to a division. The amendment was carried by 43 votes to 6. The Labour Party then filed back into their benches to. the accompaniment of Reform applause. Before the final division was taken at 2.30 a.m.; the Prime Minister, replying to the debate, expressed the hope that after the passage of the Finance Bill it would not again be necessary to apply the closure. By forty-eight votes to twenty-one the House agreed to the introduction of the closure for the twenty-third Parliament, and the House adjourned until 10 a.m. Mr Holland's Criticism. “This is a most extraordinary development,” said Mr Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, when following the , disposal of the final Labour amendment Mr Young moved that the closure should operate only during the currency of the present Parliament. “ On the one hand,” said Mr Holland, “ we have the Government altering the rules • in the middle of the game, and on the other the Opposition endeavouring to lay it down that the closure is not to apply to anybody else except the Labour Party. The Labour Party is not going to accept that position. It is very probable that after the next election the Labour Government will be in power, so the Reform Party is taking precautionary steps to see that this new Standing Order is not to be used against them. The Labour Party is not going to vote for the extension of the closure any longer than is necessary, but. it is certainly not going to vote to have the closure used against itself only. We have had a demonstration of the most abject weakness from the Government. We have seen the control of the business of the - House

removed from the hands of the Government, and the motion is tantamount to a motion of no confidence moved from the Opposition benches. “It is apparently the determination of the Reform Party to ensure that the amendment applies only to the Labour Party. If the Prime Minister will say that he is going to treat the motion as one of no-confidence we will support it. If he is going to accept it then we are not going to vote to have the gag applied to the Labour Party only.” Prime Minister Speaks. The Prime Minister said that it was .very refreshing to find that the leader of the Labour Party was so optimistic as to think that he would be in a position to use the new Standing Order in 'the next Parliament. During the whole of the consideration of the Standing Orders it had been his main consideration to get the business of the House through. Labour members: By gagging us. The Prime Minister: I have been willing to accept amendments from the Labour benches as well as any others. I don’t intend to make this a no-con-fidence amendment. In fact, I think the House is pretty well unanimous about it. I have no hesitation in accepting the amendment. The Prime Minister’s announcement caused bitter resentment in the Labour ranks, and as each speaker rose to criticise the development the language used became more forcible and there were many calls of order. “We have just witnessed the most amazing and discreditable exhibition,” declared Mr P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central). Mr Speaker ordered a withdrawal, and the member complied, substituting reflects the least credit on the Prime Minister.” Mr Fraser claimed that the Standing Orders were being brought into disrepute and the whole business reduced to a farce. Had Mr Forbes accepted an amendment applying the closure to the Labour Party only it would be more straightforward on his part. “ A Free-for-all.” Mr E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch East) said that he wished lie could use words he would like to Mr Coates: I suggest that we have a free-for-all for a few minutes. Mr Howard: I wish we could. Mr Coates: You would come off second best.

Mr Howard: Probably you could outdo Billingsgate. A “ screaming farce” was Mr D. G. Sullivan’s description of the situation. Refonn and United were anxious to escape from what had been done and had seized the only way out. Realising that he had done the wrong thing Mr Forbes wanted it to cease operating as soon as possible. Mr H. T. Armstrong: As soon as he has pinched the workers’ wages. Mr Speak&r: Order, order. “Nothinglso unfair as this has ever been proposed,” declared Mr J. M’Combs (Labour, Lyttelton). “It is the most discreditable thing that has ever been done in any Parliament.” Called To Order. “ Never in the history of Parliament has there been such barefaced class bias and class hatred,” said Mr Armstrong. “ There is class hatred in the resolution now before the House and agreed to by the United Party and the Reform Party. We will now retire from the House. At least, I hope all my colleagues will retire. We will not be a party to such unconstitutional, unBritish and such an unfair business. We will leave the dirty business to the dirty people who moved it. Mr Speaker: Order, order! The hon. gentleman must withdraw that statement. Mr Armstrong: Out of respect to you, Mr Speaker, I will withdraw. Mr Speaker: You must withdraw it unconditionally. Mr Armstrong: I will withdraw it unreservedly, but I will speak plainer when I am out of the House. At this stage several Labour , members were leaving the Chamber and they beckoned two or three times to Mr Armstrong, who had resumed his seat, and he followed them. Mr W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) also intimated that he would leave the chamber as soon as he had finished speaking. “ The newspapers,” he said, “ will not tell the people what has happened. They are like the Government; they are in the pay of the financiers in London. Mr Speaker: Order! Mr Jordan: “I will say that they are working in the interests of the financiers in London. The Hon W. A. Veitch: A point of order. The honourable member has said that the Government are in the pay of the financiers in London. Mr Jordan: I believe they are. Mr Speaker: I must ask you to withdraw that remark. Mr Jordan: I will withdraw it. Mr Jordan having finished, the few members of the Labour Party remaining, headed by their leader (Mr Holland), left the chamber, to the accompaniment of laughter from the Reform benches and smiles from the Government benches. The Division. The amendment was then put, and was challenged by Mr M’Donald and Mr M’Dougall, who called for a division. The amendment was carried by 43 votes to 6, the dissentients being Messrs M’Donald and M’Dougall (United), Lysnar, Black, Hogan and Makitinara (Independents). Immediately after the result of the division was declared Labour members returned to the chamber amidst applause from the Reform benches and an interjection from Mr Kitchener, “ Don’t run away.” Through Mr Fraser, the Labour Party explained that they had rio alternative but to withdraw from the chamber. No Occasion for Heat. Replying to the debate at 2 a.m., the Prime Minister said that he did no# think there had been any occasion for heat. The long debate on the Finance

Bill was the real reason for the introduction of the closure. Mr Semple: Don’t put that slobber over. The Prime Minister: We have had four nights of obstruction, as well as a threat that there would be no business done in this Parliament. We were repeatedly told from the Labour benches that if it came to a question of sitting it through and of wanting sleep they would not need any sleep. Mr Semple: Oh, sing it. The Prime Minister: In the present emergency something had to be done, and no one could conceive of any leader of the House sitting idly by and seeing the whole thing brought to nought. Interjectors Warned. Further Labour interjections were rebuked by Mr Speaker, who threatened to name members if they persisted. The Prime Minister repeated that important legislation was dependent on the passage of the Finance Bill. A great deal hinged on that measure reaching the Statute Book. It meant so much to the country, and unless it were passed and the finances placed on a sound basis the Government would not be in a position to deal with other legislation. Mr Semple: Sock in the earthquake again. “ The closure is a burglar’s crowbai said Mr Sullivan, when the Prime Minister resumed his seat. The Prime Minister: I hope that wheri the Finance Bill is through the use of the closure can be discarded. It will only be put into operation when it is necessary. Sharp Denial. Mr Forbes was concluding his remarks when Mr J. O’Brien (Labour, Westland) interjected: The Finance Bill is an attack on the workers’ wages. Why not call it by its proper name? The Prime Minister (sharply) : It is not an attack on the workers’ wages. It is a protection of them. The statement caused uproar in the Labour benches, and above the din Mr M’Combs shouted loudly: Humbug! Humbug! The division on the closure motion was taken at 2.30, and resulted in it being carried by 48 votes to 21, Messrs Black, Harris and Hogan supporting the minority. The House adjourned until 10 a.m.