COALITION OR COLLISION?

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3982, 15 July 1915, Page 5

COALITION OR COLLISION?

LIVELY INTERLUDE IN THE

HOUSE

DR. THACKER LIBELS THE FARMING CLASS.

“A LAZY INERT LOT.”

(By Telegraph—Special CorresponneuiJ WELLINGTON. July 14.

A lively interlude occurred in the debate on the Definition of Time Bill, better known as the Daylight Saving Bill, in the House of Representatives to-night. The debate had resolved itself into a town versus country squabble. The country members opposed the Bill* and Dr. Thacker referred to farmers as a lazy inert mob. After lie had been taken to task rather seriously for bis attack on the farmers and unreservedly withdrew his remark later Mr Escott referred to certain aspersions upon the farming class. On a point of order being raised that be ought not to refer to a remark that had been withdrawn be said that he was referring to a remark made t in aonther quarter of the House altogether. Sir Joseph Ward said he wished to make a personal explanation. Mr Speaker: Has the honorable member luron misrepresented? Sir Joseph War: f assume f may have been sir—(laughter and jeers). Sir Joseph Ward then remarked with some heat upon the custom which he said had grown up of members on the other side of the House “howling” aud “shouting” at a member who rose to speak. Mr Massey: is this a personal explanation y Sir Joseph Ward: f am speaking subject to the direction of Mr Speaker alone. Mr Massey (rising): I rise to a point- of order Air Speaker. Mr Payne (.Grey Lynn): Is - - this coalition V —(loud laughter from all parts of the House). Mr Massey: It may be a collision (laughter)' but with reference to this point of order Mr Speaker the Right Hon. Gentleman lias lectured the members on this side of the House on rising to main- a pesonal explanation. I object to being lectured bv any mt-mbor on. that side of "the House or on tbN s’id-.- tie- House Mr Speaker. What is the went of order Mr Al.'issjv: The point of order is that the right Hon. genth-man got up to make a personal explanation and be .vis not making anything m the nature of a personal explanation. Sir Joseph Ward: 1 directed your attention Mr Speaker to what was happening when I rose to speak ana I did so in ;; perfectly respectful way. 1 was confronted by a roar of "uughx-er not by the Prime M.'nistei but 1 was (•onfronted by u hat is cust- marv ti’or/i that side of the House and tha: is a jeer of laughter. Air Speaker sad rent mu: h of the uepl. ;i: antin', ss ie.ii arose oi. such oecasions would not happen if a member on rising to make a personal explanation would immediately state in what respect he had been misrepresented. Later. Air Pearce, (Pa tea), a hen speaking said something about representatives of beer. Mr Russell raised a point of order. He asked whether the phrase was in order. He knew of no constituent of the name of "Beer.” (Laughter.) Air Speaker said he understood the member to refer to representation -■ of the brewing interest. Air Isitt also rose to protect hi oiTeogues from any possible affront. He asked with apparent indignation •• flier It was in order for a merobt- t-o refer to the business of any «•- -i member. Mr Speaker said that uniorturai 7 the practice had grown up in /• o House of reverring to repres.-iitaf.v s of various classes —the farming class, the brewery ..-lass, and the nroiniution chiss. Air Pearce said that lie had spokon, of "representatives of the brewing industry." and his explanation was iu turn greeted by ironical jeers.