M.P.’s Disappointed.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 927, 23 November 1933, Page 10

M.P.’s Disappointed.

“ Severe Blow ”

Failure of Minister to Redeem Promise. (“ Star ” Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, November 23. t 6 J DON’T know what can be done. . . I am not trying to get out of the blame . it will make Ministers very careful in future.” These statements were made by Mr Coates in the earl}’ hours of this morning after he had confessed inability to frame an acceptable amendment to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill to meet the wishes of the House. This was when the measure was reported back from the Legislative Council. A ruling was given by Mr Speaker that the issue could not be revived by means of a motion for the adjournment of the House, as the standing orders made it abundantly clear that use could not be made of that means when a subject had been discussed previously during the session. Mr Coates’s statement to the House was a severe blow to members of the “ Study Circle ”, who were not prepared for this sudden move on the part of the Minister of Finance. Members of the “ Study Circle ” held a meeting later, and issued a statement expressing keen disappointment at the attitude of the Minister. After reviewing the negotiations which had taken place, the statement concluded: “Mr Coates’s failure to redeem the promise which he made, and his explanation, have caused us the keenest disappointment.” In the course of his statement, Mr Coates , said that, when the Bill was before members the clause providing for appointment of the

governor and deputygovernor was discussed at considerable length. As originally drafted, the Bill had provided for their election by the shareholders, but much objection was raised to that course being followed. The opinion expressed very strongly was that the appointment should be made by the Governor-General-in-Council. As Minister in charge of the Bill, he had moved

an amendment which provided that the two officers should be recommended by the directors or should be appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council on the recommendation of the directorate. A further point had been raised that, in the event of a deadlock, there should be some method of coming to a definite decision. A proposal was made that the Governor-General-in-Council should make the appointment a‘fter consultation with the directors, lie agreed that those proposals should be considered and submitted to the Legislative Council. Contrary to Precedent. Immediately technicalities had arisen, and one of those was that it was contrary to precedent that the Governor-General should consult with anybody other than his Ministers. In other words, it was asking that the Governor-General should do something that precedent never nor was it considered in any way correct that the Governor-General should consult the directors of such an institution. The question of redrafting the whole clause then became' involved, introducing also an element of politics which the Government was anxious to avoid. < Representations, however, had been made to the Leader of the Legislative Council, and much trouble had been taken in- an effort to see if the deadlock could be overcome; that was to say, if after fourteen days an appointment had not been made, then the Governor-General-in-Council should make it. In the Legislative Council, objection was definitely raised to that, and no solution was found. The House had accepted his undertaking that he would endeavour to have a clause drafted which would avoid anything in the nature of a deadlock. He had not been successful in being able to satisfy the House on that point. He wanted to say at once that the Government desired to avoid entirely making the appointment of the governor or deputy-governor a political one. “ A Mudhole.” Mr Savage (Leader of the Opposition) ; What does the Minister propose to do to overcome the mudhole we have been landed in? The Minister; We have landed in anything but a mudhole. Mr Savage; This is a case in which a clause was passed on the undertaking of the Minister in charge of the Bill to have the clause redrafted to meet the representations of members. Mr Coates: At least three amendments were drafted, and none were a<ceptable. Mr Savage: And now our hands are tied. We can do nothing. Mr Coates: It will certainly make Ministers very careful in future. It was never the intention of the Government to make these appointments by Governor-General-in-Council. I want to make that very definite and very clear. Mr Langstone: The Minister is to blame for what has happened. Cannot Be Discussed. Mr Lye said that he wished to correct a misunderstanding. Acting in conjunction with a number of other members of the House he had asked that the Governor-GeneraJ-in-Council should appoint the governor and deputy-governor of the bank c.n the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, who would be required to consult the board of directors. He had never at any time contemplated the suggestion that the Governor-General should consult personally any of the directors of the proposed bank. He asked Mr Speaker whether he would be in order in moving the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the position which had arisen. Mr Speaker ruled that such a motion would not be in order, as one of the conditions of the adjournment motion was that a subject previously < discussed could not be reviewed. Dead silence prevailed for a second as members realised that they could do no more in the matter, and the Prime Minister closed the incident by announcing the business for the next sitting.