HARBOURS BILL PASSED DESPITE OPPOSITION

Grey River Argus, 8 October 1948, Page 4

HARBOURS BILL PASSED DESPITE OPPOSITION

Chairman Sticks To His Ruling

P.A. WELLINGTON, Oct. 7. A brief echo of last night’s heated scene was heard when the House of Representatives went into Committee on the Harbours Amendment Bill to-day. Mr S. G. Holland (Nat. Fendalton) speaking to a point of order said that he understood that, at the time when he was absent from the House last night, certain rulings were given. In view of the circumstances obtaining at that time, in view of the fact that the House was now resuming its discussion in Committee, in view of the fact that the Opposition members felt they could not properly discuss the amendments to this Bill, without the use of certain nhrases and words such as the principles of democracy, and, in view of the wish of at least one Opposition member to refer to the report of the Special Committee of members of the House which had presented a report on Local Government several years ago, he would ask the Chairman of Committees (Mr C. L. Carr) if he could see his way to relax his ruling given last night, ruling certain words and references to the report as out of order. Mr Holland said he had given an assurance last night that he would do his best to achieve what all desired in regard to the conduct of the House, and he now hoped that the Chairman might see his way clear to relax his ruling. Mr Carr said his ruling resulted from- the fact that, throughout the second reading debate, and again in the committee stages, members, particularly from the Opposition Benches, had devoted themselves almost exclusively to consideration of one particular clause of the Bill, and had —in his judgment excessively—referred to what they chose to regard as an infringement of the principles of democracy. Mi 1 Carr said that those references had continued long enough and had been sufficiently repetitious to justify him in ruling out further references of a' nature which could result only in tedious repetition, and which would tend to retard the work mg, in the House, of those very principles of demorcracy which members of the Opposition professed to regard so highly. Mr Carr said his reasons were clear, and, in his opinion justifiable. There might be, and he supposed there inevitably must be, brief references to the term democracy, and it would be unreasonable to say the term must not be used. However, he proposed to watch the debate very closely to see that the spirit of his ruling-was observed and that no references were, by tedious repetition, used to defeat democracy itself in the working of the House. Mr Carr said that all members ,of the House stood for democratic principles, but he considered lip service to those principles had been exploited to impede the progress of th House with the business before it. Hdid not think members would wish to continue the use of such references to obstruct the business 1 of tne House. Mr Holland thanked the Chairman of Committees for his explanation a nd the debate proceeded after urgency had been taken.

Mr J. N. Massey (Nat., Franklin) said the amendment before the House (moved last night by Mr S. W. Smith (Nat., Hobson), to delete the provision for Government representatives on Harbour Boards) was an important one, drawing attention, as it did, to a proposed change In tne elective system which had long been recognised in national and local government in New Zealand. Mr. Massey said that if provosion was retained, it amounted to the Government giving candidates double chances. Mr C. G. Harker (Nat. Hawke’s Bay), said he had received a telegram of protest from the Napier Harbour Board at the retention of the provision, for non-ele-ctive members. ANOTHER WAY! Mr D. C. Kidd (Nat. Waitaki) said the Opposition did not take exception to worker representation on harbour boards, provided they were elected in, the constitutional way. The Timaru Harbour Board had asked him to oppose the clause Mr E. R. Neale (Nat. Nelson) said the Nelson Harbour Board was opposed to the clause. Mr E. P. Aiderman (Nat. New Plymouth) registered the New Plymouth Harbour Boards’ protest, and Mr D. M. Rae (Nat. Parnell) entered a protest from the Auckland Harbour Board.

A division was called for, after further discussion, and the amendment was defeated by 36 votes to 33. Other Opposition amendments were defeated by a similar margin.

NO COMMUNISTS ( During a further discussion. Mr K. J. Holyoake (Nat. Pahiatua), said that if the Minister gave no assurance that he would not be a party to the appointment of any Communists to the Harbour Boards, it could be concluded he was not a free agent. The Minister of Marine, the Hon. F. Hackett said that when it wars agreed ‘to bring the Bill forward in its nresent form, the objective was more or less an experimental one in the hope that the functioning of the Harbour Boards could be improved by the appointment of experienced men. “My thoughts and ideas about the Bill are very sincere,” said the Minister. Some fourteen .or fifteen organisations would each nominate one nerson, and from those nomination; it was hoped the Government would be able to appoint to the Boards men who would be as capable, as any Harbour Board members, of shouldering their responsibilities for thj smooth working of the ports. When the Minister made no reply on the Communist question, Mr W. A. Sheat (Nat. Patea) said the lack of assurance would indicate that the Minister reserved the right to appoint a Communist if he were ordered to do. The Bill was given its third reading, against an Opposition protest, on the voices, and was passed. The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m.