Mr Sheat Walks Out; Statement Vetoed

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31098, 29 June 1966, Page 18

Mr Sheat Walks Out; Statement Vetoed

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 28. Mr W. A. Sheat (Govt., Egmont) walked out of the chamber of the House of Representatives tonight when an Opposition member vetoed a proposal by the Speaker (Sir Ronald Algie) that he be allowed to make a personal explanation to the House.

The incident was sparked during the Budget debate when Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon) alleged the member for Egmont had been paid his full Parliamentary salary for three years by the National Party to “keep out of politics.”

Mr Mathison did not enlarge on his statement, but when he concluded his address, Mr Sheat rose on a point of order to ask the Speaker for leave to make a personal statement. Following debate on rules of procedure, the Speaker asked the House if it would give the member for Egmont leave to make a statement — without prejudicing his right to make an address in the Budget debate at a later date. “No,” called Mr W. A. Fox (Opp., Miramar). This single dissenting voice was sufficient to veto Mr Sheat’s request Mr Sheat walked out of the chamber. Challenge Made Later, he said in an interview: ‘The allegation of the member for Avon that I was paid three years’ salary by the National Party to stay out of Parliament is entirely without foundation. Mr Mathison cannot possibly produce one tittle of evidence to support such an absurd charge.” He added: “I regard his statement as a serious reflection on my personal integrity and I challenge him to repeat his statement outside the House so that I may take the appropriate steps to clear my name.”

Mr Mathison replied to Mr Sheat’s challenge: “I will say it outside the House when Mr Shand repeats many of his allegations outside the House.”

Commenting on the incident when the Budget debate resumed, Mrs E. I. Tombleson (Opp., Gisborne) told the House: “I have never heard such a sarcastic and sneering spiel.” Mr Mathison had deliberately entered into a “character assassination,” she said. “The member for Avon could get a job as editor of ‘Jock’s Own Slander Sheet.’ He would be an expert at it.” Seamen’s Strike Several references were

made to the British merchant seamen’s strike during the Budget debate. Mr J. B. Gordon (Govt, Clutha) challenged the Labour Party to state its attitude on problems New Zealand was facing because of the strike.

“Labour is frightened to say anything on this strike for fear of retaliation from the Federation of Labour of New Zealand,” he said. Mr Gordon said there had been many opportunities for Labour to offer considerable help in suggesting ways of overcoming the effects of the strike. Turning to the problem of transporting primary exports, Mr Gordon said that if the incentives given in the Budget led to increased production. New Zealand faced a real freighting problem. The government was negotiating on a world-wide basis on what had become known as “containerisation.”

Mr Gordon said “containerisation” would lead to a cost of about £95 million for alterations to ships alone. World shipping interests were endeavouring to standardise containers. The use of containers would allow exports to go from the producer to the consumer without being opened, ships would be in port for a matter of hours instead of days. There would be a 15 per cent cut in handling, pilfering would be eliminated and there would be no damage. “New Zealand cannot afford to be left behind in this,” he said. “Tougher Measures” The strike was “compounding New Zealand’s problems” and might well serve as an excuse for the Government to implement tougher measures as far as the economy was concerned, said Mr P. A. Amos (Opp., Manurewa). “The Government will use the seamen’s strike and in this

way attempt to solve some of the problems of New Zealand,” he said. Mr Amos asked if the Government intended taking firm steps to try and stop shipping companies putting 10 per cent on freight charges after the strike. The Minister of Defence (Mr Eyre) said the British strike had occurred under a Labour government. The New Zealand people feared that with the advent of a Labour Government here there would be more strikes. But Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon) dismissed the Government charges as “another good excuse” to keep debate from the Government’s inability to keep the economy on an even keel. On the restriction of the sale of overseas securities, he said everybody knew that hundreds—possibly thousands —of cars were brought into New Zealand,” but the Government did nothing to discourage it.” Sir Leslie Munro (Govt., Waipa) said the British Labour Government had so far not been able to settle the shipping strike—a strike which was threatening the trading position of New Zealand and Australia. Whatever the settlement was, shipping costs were bound to rise, he said.

Mr W. A. Fraser (Opp., St. Kilda) referred to the recent conference on decentralisation held at Masterton as another of the Government’s “deathbed repentances.” The Labour Party had been urging the Government for six years to do something practical about decentralisation of industry. Mrs E. I. Tombleson (Govt., Gisborne) outlined growth within the fishing industry and suggested improvement of internal transportation of fish, and new standards for handling of fish. She also called for improvement of the financial position of the Fisheries Board. Before too long there should be a more exact definition of the spheres of the board and the marine department.

The time had come when the fishing industry must be regarded as a stable primary industry and treated accordingly, said Mrs Tombleson.