CRITICAL MOOD

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 54, 26 November 1937, Page 3

CRITICAL MOOD

-Press ABsociation.)

RULING SOUGHT FROM SPEAKER Use of Words "Deliberately Concealed" INCIDENT IN HOUSE

(By Telegraph-

}"' ^ WELLINGTON, Last Night. : Referring to the vote of £61,086 for Ihe Dairy Industry Account in the Honse last evening, the member for Motueka, Mr. K. J. Holyoake, asked why there was such a large discrepancy between the present account and the vote of £44,550 last year, of which only £28,968 was expended. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle' (Opp.— Riccarton) asked if the acting-Director under the Dairy Industry Account was the superior officer of the head of the Internal Marketing Department. These two ofiicers must meet frequently and one should have a certain degree of authority. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Walter Nash) : The two officers concerned get on very well together, I can as^ure you. Hon. A, Hamilton (leader of the Opposition) asked that the Minister should make the guaranteed price committee's report public. Mr. Nash: It is all in the Marketing Department 's report which was published some days ago. Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister prepared to disclose at present how he will finalise the unpaid balance in this account? Mr. Nash: Not just now, but the facts will be given. Mr. W. A. Bodkin. (Oppp. — Central Otago) referred to the total salaries of the staffs both in London and New Zealand which totalled £29,970 out of thc total vote and of £61,086. The amount of salaries, he thought, was not out of proportion to the work the staffs were doing. They were doing very valuable work for the Dominion and were ceTtainly not overjiaid in view of their valuable work. Mr. W, J. Polson (Opp. — Stratford) criticised the expenses of the Guaranteed Price Committee, the amount totalling £200. He said he was doubtful whether the country got £200 worth of value for tho committee 's report. . There was difficulty in getting any real information about what happened at the committee 's meetings. He understood the reports were sent to the Minister who deliberately concealed the report. The dairy industry had been asking for that information. Mr. Savage rose to a point, of ordor, asking if the member were entitled to say the Minister was deliberately concealing a report. The Chairman of Committees (Mr. E. J. Howard) stressed the fact that the Estimates covered a very wide area and that he had always ruled that unless a member objected to a term which was not un-Parliamentary, he would not interrupt the business of the Committee by asking foT a withdrawal. Mr. Savage: I object to ,tke term used. I want to see that Ministers are not insulted. I wish to know whether a member can get away with tho ,term he used. Mr. Howard again expltined his xuling and stated .that if the Minister objected to the statement, then he would ask Mr, Polson to withdraw, but Mr. Nash had not objected. Mr. Savage: I move that the chairman reports progress and asks the Speaker for a ruling. .This is not good .enough. The motion to report progress was opposed by the Opposition, who forced it to a division, the motion being caryied by 39 to 17, When the House had resumed, and after Mr. Howard had reported the incident to the Speaker, the Prime Minister said it seemed to hini that if .the chairman 's ruling were withheld they would bb finding themselve's getting into difficulties. It was the duty of the chairman or the Speaker to see that offensivo terms were not .used Two such terms had been used that night. One Minister had been called a . loafer, but that had been allowed to pass, and the other expression was that the Minister had deliberately concealed a report. "What I am concerned about more than anything else is that unless the House will protect iudiyylur1 members, maybe the time will come when they will make efforts to protect themBelves. ' ' Mr. Coates: .What do you mean, ".they w'ill protect themselves"? Mr. Forbes said members on his side of the House were quite in accord with .the Prime Minister that the dignity oi' .the House should be upheld, but he held that there was nothxng unparliament-

ary about the words used. The Minister had not objected to them. The chairman of committees was a better judge than any member of the terms used and whether they should be withdrawn. .There was no desire by members of his side of the House to lower its dignity, and he thought Ministers were quite able to look after themselves, The Minister of Railways (Hon. D. G. Suilivan) supported Mr. Savage and stated that the words "deliberately concealed" meant that the Minister had information which he was in honour bound to give. Mr. Coates said there were two points ,to consider. The Chairman of Committees was the controller of the Committee. Mr. Savage: As far as relevancy is concerned. Mr. Coates: The words "deliberately held back" are not on the black list. Mr. Nash: You wero not in tho House. "Deliberately concealed" were th» words used. Mr. Coates: I was in tho House and I was listening. The words were "deliberately held back." Mr. Nash: No, they were "deliber 'ately concealed." , Mr. Coates: My word is as good as| jyours. Mr. Sullivan: They were "deliberately concealed." Mr. Coates, after severai more interjections of this nature, stated that Mr. Howard was as fair a chairman as it. was possible to get. Mr. J. A. Lee explained that ho hau not been in the House at the timo but he thought there was the chairman 's point of view that if the words used meant that the Minister was concealing something he should make public, then they should be withdrawn. But it was sometimes inadvisable i'or a Minister to make public certain reports and if .the J wqrds had bgea- used that sense ho

did not think the Minister was being accUsed of something he should not do. Mr. Nash said he neard the words "deliberately concealed" used. The chairman had asked hira if he objected. "I said no,". added Mr. Nash, "but the torm was offensive. I would not, however, object to anything the member for Stratford said no matter what it was." He contended that the Prime Minister was in order in protesting against the use of an offensive term. Mr. Bodkin said it was imposs'ible foi the Speaker to get the exact words used, also the atmosphere of the House at the time the incident occurred. The Minister of Labour (Hon. H. T. Armstrong) said he listened very intently to what , was said and had no doubt that what. was in the mind of tlie member was ths,t some distinct motive prompted the Minister to conceal something. Others might take an entirely diff erent view. Mr. Howard, after outlining the circumstances of the controversy, said the question was not whether tha words used were unparliamentajy but whether the Chairman of Committee was in charge of the House and was allowed to give rulings. The Speaker said he was placed in a positioh of considerable difficulty. Normally when the House was in Committee the' Chairman of Committee was judge as to the conduct of tho House. Not being present, he had missed the atmosphere of th# matter. Mr. Howard had probably felt that the words in question verged on unparliamentary usage, but he had referred them to the Minister concerned, who had decided to let them pass. "I think, in the circumstances, not being present aird Lwfing placed at a great disadvantage, that I should not interfere with the decision of the Chairman of Committee. I think : I would be creating an unsafe proeedent if I were to do so." He added that many words used in debate in. the .Souse w§re qf questionable -ta^te and

their duty was to prevent words that • were clearly unparliamentary. The .matter must be left to the discretion of the chairman. He asked all memberi .to be careful in their use of words* — -1 The yote was passedg J ... s