WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 July 1920, Page 1

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

NO CONFIDENCE MOTIONS. • BOTH REJECTED. (Our Special Correspondent). WELLINGTON, June 9 .The rejection of Mr W. D. >S. MacDonald’s Amendment to the Address-in-lteply, expressing no-confidence in the Government as at present constituted, was a foregone conclusion. Even the loader {of the Opposition had no idea of detaching any of Mr Massey’s faithful followers. His purpose in tabling the amendment, according- to his own .statement, was to ascertain where the various elements of th/e “progressive” parties s|tood.

This lie succeeded in doing to a certain extent. 'Die Independents who are really independent abstained from voting, obviously their logical course; Labour joined with Liberalism for the

nonce in expressing disapproval of the Government, and, with the exception of Air Ngata the native members vot id with the big battalion. Mr Craigie alone among the professing independents took up the dubious position < f voting with the Government. PARTY STRENGTH.

The division gives some indication

of party strength as between the Go vernnient and the Opposition. Fortyfive members voted against Mr MacDonald’s motion and twenty-three sup ported it, while there was one pair. This accounted for seventy members, Messrs Statliam, Mitchell, Veitch and S. G. Smith abstained from voting and Mr Myers and Mr- Wilford, two members of the Liberal Party are absent from the Country. The other three absent members, though not keen party’ men, may be regarded as supporters of the Government, and Sii Frederick Lang is in the chair. It seems, therefore, assuming the votes of Mr Craigie', and Mr Lysnnr not to be immovable, that the Government has a reliable majority of twelve, including tlie Speaker, a margin quite jig enough to carry it through tlie life of the present Parliament without fear of disaster. THE ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE Mr MacDonald’s motion being handsomely defeated, another trial of strength took place on Mr Statham’s motion, which was intended to obtain ian expression of opinion from the [ House on the Elective Executive question and in keeping with all precedent was accepted by the Prime Minister as another impeachment of the Government. Mr Massey himself had to confess that in the days of his political youth lie had been a supporter of the Elective Executive proposal, but he insisted it was a closer acquaintance with the working of the parliamentary macliI ine aiid not any change in the fortunes of his own party that had altered Ids I view of the proposal. This, of course I was a perfectly legitimate contention, and bis sincerity was not seriously challenged. REFORM LEFT WING.

The discussion on tile subject was chiefly remarkable for the astonishing ignorance of the nature of tlie proposal and its kindred proposals, displayed by a majority of the speakers on botli sides of the House, and for some interesting and entertaining revelations in connection with the movements of tlie Left Wing of the Reform Party during Mr Massey’s absence from the Dominion. The members of the Labour Party

probably know a great deal more about the subject than did the members of either of the other groups, but their policy was to remain quiet during the debate. The “washing of dirty linen” as one. speaker put it, over the proceedings of the Reform, “Progressives” was reminiscent of the break-away of the Liberal Left Wing years ago and but for the appearance of three of the “Rebels” in the reconstructed Cabinet appears to have followed the same course.