THE HOUSE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1848, 6 September 1913, Page 6

THE HOUSE.

PUBLIC TRUST REPORT. \ -J BROKEN FAITH. ■ t • t AN OUTSPOKEN MINISTER, i Tho House of Representatives met at I 2.30 p.m. J Mr. G. LAURENSON (Lyttelton) gavo j notico to ask the Hon. A. L. Herdman, _ Minister in Charge of the-Public Trust j. Office, "If he has read the synopsis of the report of the Public Trustee which .appears in tho 'Now Zealand Times' of yesterday, and if, in face of that synop- j sis, ho will inform the members of this Houso what his reason is for departing from the universal custom of Parliament in refusing to lay before the House the report of an officer in charge of an important Department of State on'. the . working of that Department, and on the report of a Royal Commission, which sat j to inquire into tho working and functions of this Department?" No Neatl to Walt. 1 The Hon. A. L. HERDMAN said that t he did not think it necessary • that ho r should wait until, n'ext question day. Ho c liad fully answered tho'.question, I 'some, j time ago. "The question," he continued, "is why, according to the lion. r member for Lytteltqn,. 1 departed from j what he says is tho universal custom of •) laying a certain document on the table of t'ho House—the report of tho Public £ Trustee. I take full responsibility on my shoulders for not laying that docu- , ment on tho table of the House —entire responsibility for that. My reason for f •not doing it is this: that it is not tho { universal custom that tho annual report of tho Public Trust Office should bo laid , on.the table of the House. I pointed f out to the House that during a period ; of 32 year? fifteen reports had been laid j upon the table. I want to point out, f Mr. Speaker, that a report that is ad- ; dressed to the Minister, as this report } was, dealing with mntters relating to the administration of the Department, is ( considered as a confidential document, and- should not be laid upon tho table of tho House unless the Minister thinks it should be done. Tliero is nothing in the Public Trust Act, nothing in the law, nothing in any ' regula- ' tion, which requires a Minister of 1 tho Crown to lay upon tho table of tho Houso a report banded to him by tho bead of his Department. A re-, port' handed to a Minister _ of the Crown should contain nothing else ' if it is to be laid upon tho table of the Houso but a review of tho transactions that havo occurred during tho past,year, and should contain no statement of policy." Rights of tho Public Trustee. Tho Minister went oh to state that- the report handed to .him contaiuod references to matters. of policy.- For instance, it dealt with tno administration of tho West Coast Settlement Reserves. The Public Trusteo had no right to discuss this matter with a view to his rc- ; marks being laid on the table of tho House, it was for the Minister and for the Government to discuss questions between tho lessees of tho West Coast Settlement Reserves and the Natives. Tho report dealt also with tho question of local bodies' sinking funds. What right had the Public Trustee to express opinions on questions relating to tho sinking funds.of local bodies? That'belonged to a Minister of the Crown, and nobody else. Tho Public Trustee had made comments upon the administration of the Laiid Settlement Finance Act, t which ho (the Minister) considered should 'only have been made by tho responsible Minister in charge of the Department. Tho Trusteo pointed out that the administration of the Land Settlement Finance Act was "absolutely rotten." He did not use' that'expression, but in effect he said that. "I consider, Mr. Speaker," continued the Minister, "that the Public Trusteo has no right to make a statement of that kind to bo laid on the tablo of the House without tho consent of tho ; responsible Minister in charge of tho Department. The Legal Work. "Another question discussed in the report is that regarding the legal work of tho office. I differ entirely with the view that ho (the Public Trustee) takes with regard to tlio legal work of tho office. 1 liold that it is tho duty of the Public Trustee, and cortainly tho duty of the Minister in charge of the Department, to see that tho legal work is conducted in the interests of the peoplo who place their businosß in tho hands of tho Pub- ' lie Trustee. I am not at all certain that ■ the expression of opinion of the Com: \ missioners who investigated tho affairs , of the office, namely, that the j gentlemen .who do the legal 1 work of. the office should confino 5 their attention to" legal work within the office, should not bo strictly carried 1. out. I pointed out to tho Houso rei cently that Deputy Public Trustees had 1 been appointed at DuiKHjm, Auckland, j and Christchurch. 'That will necessitate tho employment of local lawyers or local t Crown Law officers to do t'ho legal work in thgso centres." 0 "Cross Breach of Faith." - ''Mr. Speaker, there is a more serious i- aspect of this-matter," tho ,'Minister i- went on to remark. "I am entirely re- -. sponsible for that document not being' 3 laid on the table of the House. I ac--1 copt responsibility, and say that I did t what was right. There is anotl«i pwak.

[ moro gravo and serious aspcct of this matter. It is obvious from what lias taken place recently that either in t'ho Printing Office or Public Trust Cilice somebody has committed a gross broach of faith, betrayed his trust, and acted dishonestly. Somebody in a responsible position has given information to pcoplo outside." A Government member: Wants sacking! Mr. Ilerdman: "The fact that a statement was published . . . yesterday gavo. a garbled account of a document handed to mo by tho Public Trustee is absolute proof that somebody has betrayod. his trust. I think the lion, member for Avon and others can congratulate themselves on having proved to the public that the Public Trust Office or the Printing Office at the present, time is not to bo trusted. The. lion, member for Avon brought this matter up in the House. 110 said that' somebody told him in the street that there was a report from tho Public Trustee." Right of Reply. Mr. Russell: Will I bo permitted to reply ? Mr. Speaker: Only by tho indulgence of the House. Mr. Russell: Unless I am, I shall refuse to let him proceed further. The Prime Minister said that it was tho constitutional practice to allow a Minister to make a statement at any time lie thought proper. Mr. Laurenson said that he bad given notico of his question so that it might bo answered ill duo course. Ho had not attempted to take any advantage of the Minister, but the latter was making a long controversial statement. If Opposition members wero not to bo allowed to reply ho was going to protest against t'ho Minister going on. Mr. Russell said that Tie recognised' that it was tho custom to, allow the fullest latitude to Ministers in making public statements. But it was another matter when notice had been given of a question, and a Minister proceeded to make a lengthy answer introducing most controversial statements. As a matter of fair play, Opposition members should have a right of reply. "If the Minister is making this statement by leave of tho House," said Mr. Russell, "I protest. against his going any further unless I am to be allowed, at the close of bis speech, to deal with, these matters from my point of view." An Unusual Position. The Speaker said that the position was unusual. Tho member for Lyttelton had given notice of a question, and tho •Minister had said that lio. was willing to answer at once. This put tho matter in tho position of a question without notice, and in that case it could not bo discussed save by tho indulgence of tlie House. Mr. Russell said that tho Minister was not merely answering the question put to him, but .was making a' lengthy statement with regard to a certain publication made in a paper which was not referred to in the question. The Minister was endeavouring to throw responsibility on to tho Opposition side of tho Houso for what lie alleged was a broach of faith. Surely, by any principle of British fair play, this meant that Opposition members were entitled to reply. Tho Speaker said that the Minister must bo concise in answering the question. Mr. Witty said that the lion, member for Lyttelton had given notice of a question to be answered in the following week, when every member would have a right to discuss it. By answering at once, the Minister was depriving other mombers of tho right to speak. 'l'ho Primo Minister said that it was . quite true that tho Minister had made a statement in reply to a question of which notico had beon givon by the member for Lyttelton. Tliero was nothing, however, to prevent tho lion, member giving notico of his question in tho ordinary way so that members would "have a right to discuss it. Mr. Russell: You want to get your side in first and shut our months! Mr. Millar said that the Houso was going back on what had been t'ho custom for many years —that only urgent questions should bo asked without nor tico. Mr. Speaker said that questions without notico were supposed to bo of an urgent, nature. He considered that in the present case tho matter bad gone far enough. If the member for Lyttelton put his question on the Order Paper it could be discussed on Wednesday noxt. Mr. Lauronson said tliat ho would accept this decision. He had not desired to ask a question .without notice. Another Opportunity. Mr. Hordman said that he would take another opportunity of going into this matter in detail. "Mr. Russell: As soon as you like! Mr. Herdman: The, lion, gentleman can depend On that, and the hon. member for Avon need not lose his temper over it, anyhow! .