The Stonewall.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 72, 25 November 1913, Page 2

The Stonewall.

SPEAKER’S INTERVENTION.

EVERYBODY OUT OF ORDER.

[Pea PAess Association.]

Wellington, November 21

The House resumed at-2.30 p.m. in committee on the Legislature Amendment Bill. Before calling oil the easiness of the day, jVTr Malcolm, Cnairmau of Committee, made the following statement: —“The committee was occupied almost continuously the whole of last week with the'Legislature Amendment Bill. Though the debate was the longest on record, no progress was made. There have been occasions in the Parliamentary history • where the Chairman, in order to deliver the committee from a deadlock, nas disregarded the Standing Orders and insisted on the business of the country being proceeded with. This .s the commentary of Sir M. O’Korke, the then Speaker, on one such case as recorded in the journals.” Mr Malcolm here read a statement read from

:oe chair by Speaker O’Rorke in 1881, ,ih which he indicated that he (the Speaker) had power to intervene and ; stop a deadlock by ignoring the Standing Orders. Continuing, Mr Malcolm said: “We all know that the majority , :.;iust rule, alvd that the minority fmust sooner or later submit to superior force. lam not prepared just ,-tv this stage, Vo follow the precedent quoted, in which the Standing Orders ,vere ignored, but I-shall, from no.v on, use to the utmost limit the powers the Standing Orders . give, and -tey are very wide powers, to bring Jus deadlock to an end. 1 trust this intimation will he received in the safno friendly spirit in which it is made, and that members will support me in my effort to maintain the reputation and efficiency of Parliament.” Sir Joseph Ward contended that the position to-day was vastly different from that of 1881 Therefore, the • remarks of Mr Speaker O’Horke had no 'bearing on the present position. Then the deadlock was carried oh by moving alternate motions that the Chairman should leave the chair. That could not be (done now, and he appealed to the Chairman to say whether, during the- long discussion, members on his Kudo had 1 hot strictly conformed to' tlfo Standing Orders)’ thovigli.it Avar. 1 very difficult toddo so., ,ddie jjtajuliiig Orders as mow- fnimedll rhmpw■ provision! for dealing- with ;a i d’ < -hld‘ll)c!:. ; k *te;h|Uot(jcr the’ 'e'ffh'ct' ,6f' tdfe ( Stajfdii^jr 1 Orders 107 s&pjYftgaj was so. HP claim Pd that tkosy StamH, mg Orders WPrlv ■ d^sWnfcdJ^W; Jie freedUtf Mftm m? their freedom the people, r; \Jty\vas} possible fo act* in the present juncture under Standing Order 24 of the House of Commons, because that House had no Standing dialers similar in effect to our 107 and 200. The delay which had taken place since Saturday morning was due entirely to the non-ac-ceptance by the Government of an offer mad,o by him tp ppss the step] title. His side did ribt SlvaaftHolbdihw .into conflict with the Cln&r. (he asked uVIr wy (swii(v ■ther he proposed to setifside the Stamb) iug .Orders as laws gttforfhn^ 1 - business df j 'P2)' J withi;her lie was prepared, to taka on himself . the -I responsibility of, preventing.': mem bents: - 1 moving and speaking to hhidridhieilfop i and [3) whether members were to I have the right to speak four times oudj Tiny, question, in comimttee. UnJfesS I members knew what was going to lie j done it was possible that there 'would ! bo delav. 1

Mr Malcolm drew attention to that part of his 'Statement where he said that he was not prepared to follow the precendent quoted, but ho would exercise to tiie full the powers which till* Standing Orders gave him. Ho took nil responsibility for the course He was proposed to follow.

Sir Joseph Ward then indicated tha t ins party would allow the short title and the next clause to pass without iurther discussion. He presumed that tlie Prime Minister would then move his proposed amendment to give members an opportunity on the second reading debate.

Mr Massey controverted Sir Joseph Ward’s interpretation of the Standing Orders, which, he said, had no relevancy to the question at issue. Ho claimed that there were many precedents which brought the present deadlock on all fours with that of 1881. He referred to the speech of Speaker Brand in the House of Commons, and Speaker (Vitorke to show that the Standing Orders were never intended to permit a minority to impose its will on a. majority. r lhe discussion then ended, and the short title and clause 2 passed within discussion. The Hon. F. M, B. Fisher moved, without comment, a new clause as follows; (3) “The Second Ballot Act, 1910 and the Legislature Amendment Act, 1911, shall hereafter be read and construed as if all references therein to a second ballot were omitted.” Asked (o explain the clause, Mi’ Fisher said that it was a clause provided for the repeal of the second ballot. Sir Joseph Ward said that the repeal of the second ballot bad never been an issue before the country. Members were not pledged to it. It was true a repeal bad been advocated in the House, lint will a distinct promise that there would be some substitute. He quoted a speech by Mr Massey to show that in 1911 he favored a substitute for the present Bill. It was a breach of faith with the House and the country. •w The Hon. W. F. Massey, In reply, said that his side was distinctly pledged to the repeal of the second ballot. The Act should have beep repealed

years ago. It had had a most demoralising effect wherever it had been in operation. Jhe second ballot had, up to the present, given no advantages to citner party, so it eOuid not 'matter if it were abolished. Did Mr Seddon secure his majorities by the second ballot. Yet he came along every year with substantial majorities. The second ballot had been disastrous to the so-called Liberal Party,.which had dwindled until it was out*of office,. He could not understand them resisting the repeal of the Act: .. Tihe .Government had pledged themselves to bring an .Klee-;, total Bill be I ore the House next session, and the House would thpu have an df ‘inserting U. proposal if they thought fit. H : , ho‘substitute were proposed the people of the country would be quite satisfied. Mr G. W. llivsnell ■ ytiofed Hansard showing where'Mr Massey had -advocated a substitute for 1 the second ballot. ■' * ■ The debate continued in the evening, the chairman (Mr Malcolm) automatically ruling members out of order for “tedious repetition.” Late in the evening, Mr G. W. Russell moved; “That this section shall not come into operation until March 1, 1915.” He wanted the country to have an opportunity to express au opinion on the question. The motion was lost by 34 to 24. Mr H, G, Ell inoyecj ,j;h,at fhe clause should not cpj;n,e.,intp t until a. referendum of i flip pqople, r jli;ui been taken on thq .question on, the.day of the next general eleeion. This was lost* by 84 to 20. .. The clause moved by Mr Fisher pro-, v iiliug for a repeal of (the Act was carried by 83 to .23, and the House was left sitting at 2 a.m. s■N ■ 'i l !, 1( i I THE HOUSE ROSE AT BA. Wellington* November 25. After 2 o’clock a division was taken on Mr Russell’s amendment for single transferable vote, ami was defeated by 81 votes to 21. * Mr Hindinarsh moved an amendment providing for the signing of all articles during the period between the issue of tlie writs and the return thereof, and that was lost by 37 to 16. An amendment to make women eligible for the Legislative. Council was lost by’ 86'to 16. | •,■, )■ , , At 8 a,m. the amendments were disposed of, except one by the Minister, providing for 'the Minister issuing writs for elections in the event of the .death 1: • . ' i • I * , ' ; : | i ". J'i • | .* . ' of the-Speaker. . r • 1 !!l It t. * -f • if.*' ■■ I ■ M The House rose at 3.5, . ;• . ... ' 1 ' l'ii