MINISTER UPHELD

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 7, 5 August 1946, Page 6

MINISTER UPHELD

NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION DEFEATED IMPORTANT DEBATE The action of the Minister of Lands (Mr Skinner) in calling for the resignation of the chairman of the Hamilton Land Sales Committee, Mr S. Lewis, a Cambridge solicitor, formed the basis of a no-con-fidence motion in the House of Representatives, moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland).

Mr Holland contended that there had been unprecedented political interference with an important part of the judicial system. The claim of the Opposition \Vas that there was a case for the removal of a magistrate or even a chairman of a land sales committee provided there was a sufficient offence, but the Opposition also said that the person concerned could and should only be removed after a competent inquiry by some independent tribunal. To remove the chairman of the Hamilton committee because he did not give judgments sufficiently favourable to the Government was intolerable and not justified. No man had a right to be condemned without his being given a fair chance to clear himself.

The Minister of Lands (Mr Skinner) for his part, contended that all that he had done was to see that the principles of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act were carried out in the spirit in which they were drafted. The Government or himself had never, at any time, tried to interfere with any case before a land sales committee. What he had seen led him to believe that the chairman of the Hamilton committee did not have a true appreciation of the principles which the Act was endeavouring to establish, and that was why he had asked for his resignation. He had been legally advised that he had taken a .perfectly correct action. Surely, it was his responsibility to see .that the principles enunciated in the Act were carried into practice. Taking full advantage of the wide scope for argument provided by the motion, members on both sides of the House fully debated the issue, and charge and counter-charge arising out of policy matters was made and answered. The Opposition asked for a public inquiry before the Chief Justice so the facts of the sordid case could be fully investigated, but the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) said there was no sordid case and there would be no inquiry.

Replying to the debate.. Mr Holland refuted the Minister’s contention that the principles of the Act had not been carried out by Mr Lewis in the spirit in which they were drafted, and pointed out that the decisions were not the decisions of one man. For every charge made, there was a complete answer. When the Crown appealed in 11 cases, in 10, the Court did not reduce the price that had been fixed, but increased it.

The three-day debate was concluded in the early "hours of Friday morning, the no-confidence motion being defeated by 41 votes to 32. A counter-motion moved by the Prime Minister, paying tribute to Mr Skinner’s service, was carried by 40 votes to 32.