Comment From The Capital PARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT STANDARDS AT LOW EBB

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31108, 11 July 1966, Page 12

Comment From The Capital PARLIAMENTARY CONDUCT STANDARDS AT LOW EBB

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 10. A significant decline in the standards of conduct in the House of Representatives has been one of the most noticeable features of t P , Parliamentary session. This has been acknowledged m part by the : Speaker (Sir Ronald Algie), who commented on Thursday night that the inter jections were the worst he had experienced during his six years as Speaker. He said this, significantly enough, after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) had complained about “the constant naming of theOppos tion for interrupting the proceedings of the House. Sir Ronald Algie replied. “I will continue to name the Opposition if I am satisfied in my own mind they should be named.”

Unfortunately, habitual interjection by some members has been only a minor manifestation of the general fall from grace. Members have been systematically baited while speaking. Members on both sides have used Parliamentaiy privilege to make allegations they have had no intention of proving. Other members seem to have studied Speakers’ Rulings and Standing Orders in order to get as close as possible to the borderline of what is not permissible. Some remarkable statements have been allowed to pass. A member has been described as “a political pipsqueak of the first water,” another as “chief yapper of the Socialist pack.” The list of words and phrases banned as “unparliamentary” by previous Speakers reveals many which are milder and less unpleasant than some of those which have been allowed to pass unchecked during the present session. Other aspects of the control of the House have worried members on both sides during the last week. It has been seriously suggested (and not by a Labour man) that the previous Speaker of the House, Mr R. M. Macfarlane, who now occupies a crossbench on the Opposition side, would never have let the present situation develop. A Punishment On Tuesday, June 28, Mr W. A. Sheat (Govt., Egmont) was refused permission to rise and make a "personal explanation” which would have amounted to a denial of an allegation by Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon). The rules of the House stipulate that an application for permission to speak in explanation must be refused if one member objects. Mr W. A. Fox (Opp., Miramar) said “No.”

to in terms of physical disparagement To make matters worse, the Speaker several times “warned” Mr Fox for interjecting. The Speaker took the view that Mr Sheat was “defending his honour.” He stated: “The Speakers’ Rulings say that where a member’s honour is impugned he has the widest possible latitude in defending himself as long as his words are within Parliamentary rules.”

allegation, Mr Mathison, obviously enjoying himself, interjected: “How much did you get, then?” Mr Sheat: I did’nt get what you’re going to get in the next 10 minutes.

This set the tone for the later exchanges. Since the allegation was first made nearly a fortnight ago there has been no attempt to produce evidence to confirm it, and there has been no Opposition request for an inquiry. Thus the charge, made by Mr Mathison, under privilege and not substantiated, must be regarded as baseless. It is reminiscent of the charges made by Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere) against the then president of the National Party. Mr J. W. Meadowcroft, except that the Meadowcroft case was at least fully discussed. It is apparent that the two party leaders are concerned about some aspects of Parliamentary conduct. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. E. Kirk) has endeavoured to redress the position several times on points of order. One such point, made by Mr Kirk on Friday in relation to a Speaker's ruling, was very firmly backed up by the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) and is at present under review by Sir Ronald Algie.

Had he so desired, Sir Ronald Algie could have stopped Mr Sheat in full flight by a simple application of Standing Orders, No. 184 of which says: “All imputations of improper motives, or unbecoming reference to a member's private affairs, and all personal reflections, shall be deemed highly disorderly.” The interpretation of this rule is entirely in the Speaker’s hands. There are those who believe that Mr Speaker Macfarlane would have taken it more literally. He might also have taken a different view on the question of whether Mr Sheat was really defending his honour when he took 16 minutes of a halfhour speech to attack Mr Fox for the use of a single word. Use Of Privilege Earlier in the session the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) was criticised inside and outside the House for naming and attacking members of the staff of Auckland University. Recently, Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon) alleged in the House that Mr Sheat had been paid three years’ Parliamentary salary by the National Party “to keep out of politics.” When Mr Sheat denied this!

It. relates to whether something that is inadmissible as a statement can be made in the form of a question. Parliament these days is no place wherein school-children could usefully study the use of the Queen’s English. It seems axiomatic, however, that intention rather than grammatical form should be the Speaker’s main guide in determining whether an expression should be admitted.

His reason for doing so was that Mr Sheat had not yet spoken in the Budget Debate, and that he thus had half an hour, apart from “extra time,” in which to deal with the allegation. In effect, this is what Mr Sheat did, though he waited until the penultimate speech of the Budget Debate before he spoke. For his single word of rejection, Mr Fox had to sit through 16 minutes of invective after being ' first threatened and then referred