9 April 1986, New Zealand Parliament.
In Committee Debate resumed from 26 March 1986.
Part II. Amendments of Human Rights Commission Act 1977 (continued).
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura), on a point of order, drew attention to Speaker's ruling 138/4; and to Speaker's ruling 139/1, which stated that it was not competent for a private member to propose additional taxation. He asked the chairman to consider the relevance of that ruling in the context of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill.
PHILIP WOOLLASTON (Nelson) said that if the Bill could be construed as involving a charge on the people it would be a matter for the Speaker, not the Chairman. The matter should have been dealt with on the introduction of the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN: The matter cannot be dealt with at this stage. I uphold the interpretation of the member for Nelson. The proper course is for the member for Papakura to raise the point when the Bill is next considered by the House—that is, on the third reading.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura), on a point of order, sought the leave of the Committee for the Speaker to be recalled to deal with the matter raised under Speaker's ruling 138/4 and Speaker's ruling 139/1.
The CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection?
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda) objected.
GRAEME LEE (Hauraki), on a point of order, sought the leave of the Committee to consider Part II of the Bill clause by clause.
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda) objected.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura), on a point of order, said that under Speaker's Ruling 221 a private member's Bill that might involve an extra charge on the people by way of rates payable into the Public Account required the recommendation of the Crown and was therefore out of order. Speaker's Ruling 17/1 stated that a private member's Bill that would enlarge the scope of the State's liability by providing for the expenditure of public moneys was an Appropriation Bill. It had been ruled when the Bill had been introduced that it did not involve an appropriation, but it had since been stated that moneys would have to be appropriated.
The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the member wants to question whether the ruling was properly given. I can only repeat my earlier ruling that it is perfectly appropriate for the member to raise the matter in the House, but not in the Committee. I do not have any power to rule whether the Bill involves an appropriation.
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON (Tamaki), said that during the Committee stage an amendment could cause the original ruling to be no longer valid; and a detailed discussion of the Bill could disclose something that made the original ruling no longer valid. He moved, That progress be reported in order to obtain a ruling from the Speaker. Motion agreed to.
House Resumed.
The CHAIRMAN: Mr Speaker, I have been asked to seek your ruling on whether the Homosexual Law Reform Bill involves an appropriation. As I was not in a position to give a ruling on that myself, and as a motion has been moved, it has been agreed that your ruling be sought on the matter.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): The issue first arose earlier tonight before the tea adjournment. The difficulty the Committee got itself into-and there has been no challenge to the chairmanship of the member for Western Hutt, as the Journals of the House will testify-is that following discussion it became clear to the Committee, and therefore to the House, that there might be revenue implications in the Bill that the Committee and Parliament had not originally contemplated. I refer you to Speaker's ruling 138/4: "A private member's Bill clauses of which may involve"-and this is the reason I am raising the matter, remembering that I have not stated that the Bill will or shall—“an extra charge on the people in the way of rates”—and Mr Speaker Statham obviously meant that to mean taxes—“payable into the Public Account", which we call the Consolidated Account, "requires the recommendation of the Crown, and is therefore out of order." I shall come back to that, but for the moment I refer you to Speaker's ruling 139/1, which states in the second sentence: "It is not competent for a private member to propose additional taxation.” That was a ruling of Mr Speaker O'Rorke in 1879, Volume 32, at pages 486 and 497. Speaker's ruling 17/1--again a ruling of Mr Speaker Statham-in 1935, Volume 242, at page 473 states: "A private member's Bill which would enlarge the scope of the State's liability by providing for the expenditure of public moneys is an appropriation Bill." Given the three Speakers' rulings, I believe we have reached the point in the Bill at which we need to establish clearly to what extent the Homosexual Law Reform Bill may be an impost on the people as foreshadowed in the ruling of Mr Speaker Statham. Will the Bill cost the hard-pressed people more in taxes?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member of his obligation to express the matter tersely.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I am happy to do that. In the belief that the Bill may impose a burden on the people, I refer the House to a paper issued by the head office of the Department of Health, signed by Dr R. A. Barker, Director-General of Health, and presented to the Statutes Revision Committee of Parliament on 30 April 1985—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I may be of some assistance to the member in advancing his case. As I understand it, the House and the Committee to date have been working on the assumption that the Speaker's ruling that was given on the introduction of the Bill—that it did not involve an appropriation-was a valid assessment. That remains the rule of the House until the Bill has been altered in some way so as to change the validity of that ruling. If the member has evidence that would lead him to believe that is so, he should produce it tersely.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I can, in the sense that Mr Speaker Statham foreshadowed it-and I chose my words with caution, for he said "may" and I believe he meant that injunction to act not as a brake on the Committee or on Parliament but as a caution.
Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but he seems to misunderstand the issue before the House. The matter before the House-and I presume before the Committee-is whether the Bill has been altered, or whether it is proposed to alter it, in such a way as to make the ruling given by the Speaker invalid. If not, either the member or the Committee is attempting to overrule a ruling that has been given by the chair, and that is not acceptable. I ask the member to come quickly to the point and explain to me in what way the House or the committee has embarked on a procedure that was not envisaged when the ruling was given that the Bill did not involve an appropriation. I ask him to draw attention quickly to the proceedings the Committee is involved in that were not foreseen in that ruling.
Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Muldoon: I should like to help by traversing something that was put to the Chairman before you were recalled. As you have said, one possibility is an amendment to the Bill; another circumstance is that of evidence arising during the debate that was not in front of you when you made the ruling, but that nevertheless indicates that if the Bill were passed in that form an appropriation would be needed. That is the evidence that the member has put before the Committee. Because it was a Speaker's ruling, you have been asked to return to listen to that evidence to find out whether it would have altered your ruling had it been in front of you when the Bill was introduced.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to arrive at that point fairly soon.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I refer to the Department of Health paper No. 954. It is obviously a ministerial paper as it must go through the Minister to be received by the appropriate select committee of Parliament, which, in this case, was the Statutes Revision Committee. Whilst no specific dollar and cents terms are added by way of addendum to the paper, it is clear to any member-especially to one who has been a spending Minister that, although it is not emphatically stated, the passage of the Bill would mean a further appropriation by the Government. I quote an addendum to the substantive paper: "AIDS has followed an epidemic course." It should be remembered that that was written by the Director-General of Health, who is not given to using emotive words because he is not in that mould.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member again of his obligation to express his point of order tersely.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: My submission is that in the absence of a specific revenue-spending pattern for the current financial year, and, as is the custom in New Zealand, for the two subsequent years, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance-who keeps a close eye on that kind of thing-and their colleagues should come back to Parliament or to a select committee of the House and fill out all the detail. The Minister of Defence, the Minister of Education, the Prime Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister know that if the Bill is passed it will involve considerable expenditure, if only for advertising the changes in the law. In addition, there will be the expense of combating the insidious effects of the Bill should it be passed. Speaker's ruling 138/4(c) makes it clear that if an extra charge might be imposed on the people the recommendation of the Crown is required—and we have not had a Crown opinion on the matter—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member seems to be unable to comply with the Standing Orders, which state that a point of order must be expressed tersely. May I assist the member by saying that I understand his point of order to be that, because evidence has been presented to the committee, and to the House, that AIDS has reached epidemic proportions overseas, and will reach epidemic proportions in New Zealand, the passage of the Bill will involve an appropriation.
Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Muldoon: No, the increase in the spread of AIDS will therefore cost more in terms of health expenditure.
Mr SPEAKER: Have I correctly interpreted the member's point of order?
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. It is not the wish of the Committee or of the House to overrule your decision, but when the Bill was introduced you did not have that information.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is not speaking relevantly to the point of order. The wishes of the Committee are irrelevant to the ruling members are asking me to make.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I appreciate your tolerance. I am obliged to you, not for my sake but for the sake of the issue. There was no determination by the Committee to overturn decisions, per se.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry, but the honourable member is embarking on irrelevant matters.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: You raised it. I am trying to help you.
Mr SPEAKER: They are not relevant to the issue.
FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): The member has presented, as his so-called evidence, Department of Health submission No. 954 to the select committee that considered the Bill. He has quoted selectively from the submission. Members who have not read the submission should know that in it the Department of Health outlined the already established AIDS education and prevention programme. The submission does not suggest that the campaign cost will increase should the Bill be passed, but makes the contrary suggestion: "It is unlikely that the passing of this Bill will negatively influence the effectiveness of the proposed AIDS campaign." It is considered that there could be positive benefits from the campaign, which would depend for its success, to some extent, on good communication and the effective and open dissemination of information. The point was not that it would require the expenditure of extra Government money, but that the public environment that the Bill would create was important. The Government already has an AIDS programme in place.
WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): The distinction from your previous ruling is that changed circumstances could occasion an increased appropriation over a period. A strong case can be made out if the chronological evidence is considered. Since the Bill was introduced there has been an appropriation of about $3 million for that programme, and that is accepted.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to come to the point at issue. He is being totally irrelevant.
WINSTON PETERS: Perhaps I could come back and give you, Mr Speaker, the legal distinction that I sought to draw your attention to-that evidence may emerge from the Committee suggesting that appropriation has to take place either inside the House or outside it; but changing circumstances can also provide evidence that may lead you to change your ruling. There has been an appropriation, and that is the first standard. There is likely to be a further increase in that appropriation because of the increased incidence of AIDS. That is supported by overseas evidence that a liberalisation of the law has brought about an epidemic.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard both sides of that argument. The member is trying to introduce a point about the effects of that on the incidence of AIDS as an argument as to whether the Bill is an appropriation. That is not appropriate. The member should produce evidence about the question—that is, whether the present position is any different from the position when the ruling was made that the Bill did not involve an appropriation. That is the only issue before the House. It is the difference between the evidence that was available then compared with the present evidence. What the evidence may be is not relevant—it is the altered evidence.
WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I have been following your explanation, Mr Speaker, as to what would distinguish your ruling now as opposed to your previous ruling. Please turn your mind, if you can, in a legal manner, to the evidence in all the circumstances rather than the provision of evidence right now, which you well know cannot be given by any member of the House.
Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling was given in the light of the circumstances that were widely known at the time. I have been requested to make a ruling on the fact that there was certain evidence that was unavailable to the Speaker at that time that has since become available to the House, which would justify a reversal of the Speaker's ruling. That is the matter before the House at present. There is no other question. The question is why that evidence is available now and was not available before.
WINSTON PETERS: In a nutshell, the evidence is provided by the member for Wellington Central, who is on public record as saying that when the Bill is passed gays from overseas will come to New Zealand for a holiday to celebrate. That is my evidence. What more decisive evidence could one possibly need?
FRAN WILDE (Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been grossly misrepresented by the member for Tauranga and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise. He cannot produce any evidence that I have ever said that.
JOHN BANKS: Did the member say that?
FRAN WILDE: No, the member for Southern Maori said it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The matters that can be seriously raised in this point of order have already been raised, unless members have matters that are relevant to the narrow point of why the evidence was not available to the Speaker and the people who advised the Speaker at the time the original decision was made. The matter does not involve what the evidence is.
GEOFF BRAYBROOKE (Napier): I shall make my speech relevant and stick to the facts. When you originally ruled on this matter-when the Bill was introduced-I believed, and most members believed, that your ruling was correct. It certainly was correct for Part I, because there is no appropriation on decriminalisation, but the evidence that has come before the House, and before the whole of New Zealand, is that there has been an overwhelming cry against the Bill. You would not have known that, Mr Speaker, when the Bill was introduced. Parliament was subject to a petition with 750,000 signatures, the largest in the country's history. If the Bill is passed it will affect the Human Rights Commission, which is funded by the taxpayer, and is paid for by the Crown. There will be a whole stream of submissions to the Human Rights Commission. Even if there is only one-and there will be thousands-that in itself will cause a huge increase in the expenditure and vote for the commission. In my view a petition with more than 750,000 signatures proves there will be extra work for the commission.
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (St. Kilda): I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the contribution by the member for Napier has clarified the issues fairly well for the House in that, as he said, no appropriation is involved in Part I, which is the only part that has been passed by the Committee. It has been suggested to you, on the basis of evidence that cannot be adduced, that there may be some involvement of appropriation in Part II—
WINSTON PETERS: Part I has been passed.
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Part I has been passed in the Committee, but that is all, and it is agreed by the House that that is all that has happened. Part II has yet to be considered by the House, let alone voted on with any amendments. If anything happens in the Committee debate on Part II it can be dealt with later; it is not relevant now.
Mr SPEAKER: I remind the member that he—along with the last two speakers-is not addressing the question that is in front of me, which is one of changed circumstances. I do not intend to allow any further contribution unless I hear some argument directed towards the circumstances I have to deal with. To date I have not been at all impressed.
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I apologise, Mr Speaker. What I am trying to say is that there are no changed circumstances since you made your ruling. The only changed circumstances that could occur have yet to occur in the Committee. The point that should then be raised should be raised after the Committee stage. You may then have new evidence and new matters to consider, depending on the nature of amendments passed in the Committee. At this point there is no new evidence to suggest that you should change your ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: That has raised a further point, which I shall deal with. Again I remind members-because my experience to date is that they are not addressing themselves to the point-that the issue is new evidence that was not available to the Speaker at the time. To traverse the nature of that evidence is irrelevant. Members should not do that.
BRUCE TOWNSHEND (Kaimai): Mr Speaker, I will try to answer your request specifically. I suggest to you that the one change that has not been brought before you is that the evidence upon which the member for Papakura has made his claim is based on a paper that was presented to the select committee subsequent to your making that ruling, and in doing so-
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That fact has already been drawn to my attention, and unless the member has some new evidence I ask him to resume his seat.
BRUCE TOWNSHEND: I just want to make one more point. I suggest that as the new evidence has come forward it should be studied by you, Mr Speaker, and the Clerk of the House, to see if it is applicable.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon. FRANK O'FLYNN (Minister of State): All that has been suggested was neatly summarised by you in connection with the suggestion that there may be some increase in the spread of AIDS, and some increase in the Health vote to deal with that. That is a highly debatable point. Some members suggested that it may be so, while others suggested that it may not, and it is a highly debatable matter. It is not fresh evidence upon which the Chair should alter its previous ruling.
GRAEME LEE (Hauraki): I submit to you that the specific evidence available now is different from that available at 3 March 1985. The evidence is contained in a written answer from the Minister of Health, and it is only 10 days old. The question to the Minister of Health related to the cost of the AIDS epidemic, and the figure quoted was $9.9 million. That is a specific figure, and I suggest that it answers the question relating to the nature of the change in status of the Bill. It must be considered by the Chair as being directly related to the Bill, because 73 percent of homosexuality is related to the disease AIDS.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Information about the incidence of homosexuality was available to the Speaker or his advisers before the decision was made.
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON: You may be infallible, but you're not psychic!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not say that all the evidence was available to the Speaker; I said that it was available to the Speaker or his advisers. Some of those people who advise Speakers are the very people who have been named regarding this matter. As I understand it, no member is trying to overrule the original ruling given by the Chair, there has been no suggestion of that. However, it is suggested that because of new evidence that was not available to the Speaker or his advisers previously it has become apparent that an appropriation is involved that could not have been foreseen. My understanding is that it is alleged by those who are raising the matter that the inevitable consequence of the passing of the legislation will be an increased incidence of the venereal disease AIDS, and that a further appropriation of public moneys will be involved because of that. Those involved in the counter-argument are telling me that the evidence that has been presented from the same source is not that it will unequivocally produce that effect but that it may produce that effect, and that it may also allow a more effective public health campaign to be carried out. We then come to the question that has been raised of whether the public health campaign that will result from the legislation is an appropriation. An appropriation has already been made for that, which, presumably, takes into account all the contingencies involved. Therefore that cost will not fall more heavily because of the passage of the legislation. We then come to the question raised by the member for Napier-whether the expected increased incidence of the work of the Human Rights Commission will involve an appropriation. I should need proof that the passage of the legislation would involve not just a more active engagement of those employed by the Human Rights Commission-which might be one result of the Bill—but that further staff would have to be employed to deal with the matter. No evidence has been brought to me that that would be the result. In the circumstances—because the evidence brought forward to the House is equivocal-for the Chair to make a decision against the advice that has been given to date, which is quite extensive, would be for it to enter into the argument. It would be to make a decision that favoured one side contrary to the advice that had been given to the Chair. For that reason I do not intend to alter the original decision given by the Chair-that the Bill does not involve an appropriation.
WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The present legal position is that a person who wishes to allege discrimination on the grounds of homosexual preference may not bring a case to the Human Rights Commission.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It would be a great help to me if the member-who, after all, is legally qualified-would draw my attention to the Standing Order under which he is raising the point of order. His words to date do not indicate to me that there is any Standing Order or Speaker's ruling to which I should direct my attention.
WINSTON PETERS: The Speaker's ruling concerned is the one you have just given. I can substantiate that on the ground that the ruling you have just given was that the parts of the Bill that concern the Human Rights Commission will not occasion extra appropriation. I can prove categorically that they will do so.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not given a ruling about what the activities of the Human Rights Commission will be; what I have given is a ruling that the Bill does not involve an appropriation. I have given a ruling that to form a judgment one way or the other on the evidence presented to me would be to fly in the face of the advice given to me by dispassionate people, and to take the part of one side or the other of this argument. If the member is raising as his point of order, the most recent ruling given by the Chair for the purpose of questioning that ruling, I remind him that that is a most disorderly procedure.
WINSTON PETERS: I am relying entirely on the words of your ruling to justify the point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Again, I ask the member to draw my attention to the Standing Order of which the House appears to him to be in breach.
WINSTON PETERS: No, sir, I am relying in the point of order on a Speaker's ruling-your ruling, that you have just given.
Mr SPEAKER: Do you intend to bring that ruling into question?
WINSTON PETERS: No, sir.
Mr SPEAKER: What is your purpose?
WINSTON PETERS: Your ruling gave the clear explanation to the House that if it could be proved evidentially that the passage of the Bill would require a greater appropriation
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry: without a doubt, as every member of the House must be aware, the member is bringing my ruling into question.
WINSTON PETERS: If you have been hoist by your own verbal petard, that is your problem.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Machinery is available to question my ruling, but that is not to be done by the procedure the member wishes to use. I have given my ruling, and that is final.
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON (Tamaki): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the House, and later the Committee, can I take it from your ruling that if some member is now able to produce concrete evidence of the matters that have been alleged that is acceptable to your advisers you would be prepared at a later stage of the Bill to rule again on whether an appropriation is involved? In other words, we can carry on with the Committee, but if members were able to put solid evidence in front of you and your advisers you would, if necessary, reconsider the matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, it is a matter that can be raised until the third reading, because circumstances could change subsequent to a ruling. However, the kind of evidence needed to overrule a Speaker's ruling is not that based on opinion but evidence based on fact.
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MULDOON: Facts that weren't available previously?
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but not opinion.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON (Papakura): I raise a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker
Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh and entirely different point of order?
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: No, Mr Speaker, it is not entirely different. [Interruption.] Well, they can giggle. I believe that in this matter we are very much paving the way for subsequent legislation of this kind
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It would be of great help to me if the member could draw my attention to the Standing Order or Speaker's ruling that he wants to discuss-and it may not be a ruling immediately given by the
Speaker. Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: I refer once more to Speaker's ruling 138/4. The difficulty is foretold by Speaker Statham, who said that it was not a matter of producing hard evidence at a particular point. That was the difficulty for the House when the Bill was introduced. Only 13 of the 95 members spoke, and one can work out the percentage. There was not sufficient evidence for the Speaker
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am being forced to the opinion that the member intends that I should reverse my ruling.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: No.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, I ask him to tell me the remedy he wants to achieve.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: In relation to your ruling of 9 April 1986, that of necessity now has to be
Mr SPEAKER: I am asking the member what remedy he seeks.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: Well, simply this— [Interruption.] There they go. They would spend the taxpayers' money like pouring water out of a tap, and that is the point at issue tonight.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: Well, they interjected, sir. The remedy I seek is an assurance that the matters raised in Speakers' ruling 138/4, 139/1, and 17/1 are not left in abeyance
Mr SPEAKER: Those Speakers' rulings relate to private members' Bills and taxation.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: No.
Mr SPEAKER: I advise the member to look up the context of those rulings.
Hon. MERV WELLINGTON: What is a taxing Bill, and what is not?
Mr SPEAKER: I have already taken the trouble to make myself familiar with the position.
WINSTON PETERS (Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of the standard of evidence you require, so I am not in any way challenging any ruling you have made. Given the use of the words "implied appropriation", what standard of evidence would you regard as being sufficient to change the rulings you have given?
Mr SPEAKER: That would depend on the circumstances. The Speaker does not make decisions such as that without guidance from the appropriate authorities. I am not in a position to say now what the evidence-if it is brought forward by the appropriate authorities—may be.
Committee resumed Part II.
Amendments of Human Rights Commission Act 1977 (continued).
House resumed.
The CHAIRMAN: Mr Speaker, the Committee on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill has directed me to report progress, and has also directed me to ask leave to sit again.
Mr SPEAKER: The Chairman of Committees reports that the Committee has directed him to report progress on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill and has also directed him to ask leave to sit again. The question is, That the report be agreed to.
The House divided on the question, That the report be agreed to. Ayes 37 Anderton; Austin, M. E.; Bassett; Boorman; Burke; Butcher, Caygill; Clark; Colman; Cullen; Dillon; Douglas; Dunne; Elder; Fraser, Gair; Gerbic; Goff; Gregory; Keall; King; McKinnon; Marshall, C. R.; Matthewson; Neilson; Northey; Palmer; Richardson; Shirley; Sutton, J. R.; Sutton, W. D.; Terris; Tizard; Upton; Woollaston; Tellers: Mallard; Wilde. Noes 33 Angus; Austin, H. N.; Austin, W. R.; Banks; Birch; Bolger, Braybrooke; Burdon; Cooper, East; Gerard; Graham; Gray; Jones; Knapp; Luxton; McClay; McLay; McTigue; Marshall, D. W. A.; Maxwell, R. F. H.; Morrison; Muldoon; Peters; Smith; Talbot; Tirikatene-Sullivan; Wallbank; Wellington; Young, T. J.; Young, V. S. Tellers: Friedlander; Lee. Majority For: 4 Report agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.6 p.m. Vol. 470