HOORAY! DISSOLVE! CRIED IN HOUSE

Grey River Argus, 7 October 1948, Page 5

HOORAY! DISSOLVE! CRIED IN HOUSE

Opposition Mistaken Over Division

P.A. WELLINGTON, Oct. 6. The Harbour Amendment Bill was discussed in committee in the House of representatives to-night. The second reading debate on the Bill was taken some weeks ago, and the Bill has since been referred to the Local Bills Committee.

To-night Opposition speakers renewed their earlier objections to direct representation of the waterfront industry workers on harbour boards

Mr S. W. Smith (Nat., Hobson) said that it was clearly the wish of most of those who gave evidence to the Committee that Harbour Boards should be elected on a democratic basis. He said that direct nomination of representatives of one section of workers was a negation of democracy. and clearly has not been called for by the public. Mr T. C. Webb (Nat., Rodney) said that the Bill was designed to help what he termed the Government’s “new look” policy, as defined by the Minister of the Crown at New Plymouth —that, in order to remain in office, it had to cultivate and retain the support of the workers, whether the methods were in line with democratic principles or not. Represented on the present Harbour Boards there were about fifty-one farmers on Boards throughout the country. Mr E. B. Corbett: “By democratic vote.” Hon. F. Hackett, answering references to his New Plymouth statement, said: “I will say on any platform, at any place in the Dominion, that any Government which. has nassed the beneficial progressive legislation this Government has passed has one desire —to remain in power, and to continue with its pru gramme, rather than capitulate to an unsympathetic Opposition.” Mr J. T. Watts (Nat. St. Albans) said that because the Government hoped to get the support of the militant unions, it had brought down a Bill which contained provisions contrary to the recommendations of some Government members. Hon. W. E. Parry said that there was so wide a difference of opinion on the matters discussed by the Local Government Committee, that ne had urged a compromise, rather than have the discussions break down. The recommendations were made as a basis for discussion only. Nothing would have been done unless there was some compromise and he was convinced that no great principle had been broken. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nat. Central Otago) said that the Ministers explanation was the most amusing excuse that he had heard in the las! twenty years in the House. A major consideration was that the Government should hold office at all costs. He said that the Bill was framed to nlace Communists <>n the waterfront because the Government would need their support at the next election. The Acting-Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. W. Nash then moved that the question be put on the short title. When the result of the division was announced, it showed that the closure was refused by 34 votes to 3.1 votes. There then were heard from the Opposition benches cries ofi “Hooray! Dissolve!”

Shortly afterwards, however, the division lists were, further scrutinised. The voting was then found to be 34 to 34. The Chairman of Committees Mr Clyde Carr then cast his vote with the Government, making It 35 to 34 for the closure.

A further division was taken on the Short Title, which was agreed tn by 37 votes to 34 votes. Progress was reported, and the House rose 10.30 until 2.30 tomorrow, when the debatjp ofn the Committee stages of the Bill will be continued, with the second reading debate on the Land Valuation Court Bill to follow.