THE FINANCE BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 8 April 1931, Page 2

THE FINANCE BILL

application of closure. WELLINGTON, April 4. One of the greatest and most prolonged struggles in the history of the New Zealand Parliament ended at 3 o’clock on Thursday morning, when the Finance Bill, the first of th e economy measures upon which Air Forbes "as determined that the Government should stand or fall, was passed through its final stages. This measure, which provides for a universal 10 per cent, salary cut throughout the civil service and empowers the Arbitration Court to vary . existing awards, has now only to pass through the Legislative Council to become statute law and operative as from April 1. The Prime Minister’s struggle against determined Labour opposition to ha% e the Bill written into the country’s laws was noteworthy in several ways. The passage of the measure occupied the greater part of three weeks. Three days spent on the second rending merely warmed the Labour Party up to the organised obstruction they had prepared for tha committee stage, which kept the House occupied for just on 100 sitting hours, divided members on 65 occasions, and kept the Government printing office busy printing 41 supplementary order papers. This is a far greater number than is usually required for an ordinary session and 31 of them were feinted to clause 2 of the. Bill.

Hay and night weary members sat and slept while Labour talked on interminably. It seemed that they were frankly endeavouring to prevent t he Government from passing a Bill which would react upon the living standards of tho working man, wearing themselves into a hand of wan, irritable men and playing havoc with, the nerves and temper of their fellow-members on all sides of tho Chamber. It was an ex-

tremely jumpy House that saw the last stage of the Bill reached in th© early

hours of Thursday morning and bitter words and unparliamentary language were frequently used in some colourful scenes during this marathon debate. The long discussion was noteworthy,

too, for the introduction of the closure, poVssjbly the most drastic step ever taken by a Prime Minister of this Parliament. His predecessors in office had

persistently refused to sanction the writing of this vicious weapon into the parliamentary ■ Standing Orders, and

many outstanding stonewalls have been negotiated in the past without recourse to the “guillotine,” nntl.v referred to

on occasions as ''sandbagging.” For this necessity, however, the Government itself was largely mmorjsible. Firmness in the chair would have accomplished a great deal in crushing the enthusiasm of the Labour obstructionists who were susnected at timr-s of I.ivine their little jolr° at the expense of the Chairman of Committees (Mr W. A. Bodkin) bv adroit manipulation of the Standing. Orders and forms of tho House during the most tedious periods of the committee discussions. The Prime Minister’s acknowledge- ' merit in the House when the GovernbJrient was suddenly confronted with possible defeat by an adverse 'motion from the Reform benches that he desired the closure solely for the

purpose of breaking down Labour’s opposition caused a stir in the Labour

dovecotes. “Martyrdom in the workers’ cause’’ was the keynote for several days, but shrewd political observers discern in the imposition of the closure a convenient retreat from a very in. convenient situation, The legal forms of the House would have allowed the stonewall to continue for several weeks more; but Labour was tired of it, and already some of the party’s back-ben-chers were asking whether it was all worth while. When the fight was over there was a Ministerial migration to the Prime Minister’s bench, and Mr Forbes received handshakes and congratulation*, from his colleagues, as well a s a kinoly word from several Reform members for his tenacity in pressing for a speedy application of the wage cuts—a policy that is necessarily regarded as universally unpopular, Labour members maintained their opposition to the last and on the short

third-reading debate, the party lieutenant, Mr P. Fraser, said: “I bev.lieve this measure will bring disaster, and we on this side of the House will take the first opportunity of having it repealed.”