Speaker Explains Ruling

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 61, 4 December 1937, Page 5

Speaker Explains Ruling

— Press Association.)

LABOUR GHALLENGE Opposition References io Communism QUESTION OF RELEVANCY

(By Telegrapb-

WELLINGTON, Last Night. "It is my duty as Speaker to try to the best of my ahility to apply to the conduct of debate the settled xwjes and practice of the House. I can scarcaly hope that on every occasion all honourablt) members will agree with my rulings, hnt the practice of Parliament provides that such rulings shall stand and be respected unless and until formally reve'rsed by the House." , With tnese words the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. W-4 E. Barnard, to-day concluded the debate on the point of order raised by( the Prime Minister, the Rt, Hon. M. J. Savage, on the right of memberg of the Government to reply to Opposition charges of Communism in. conneetion with the Primary Produots Marketing Amendment Bill. ' In discussing the poittt of qrder, Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Nat., Kdccarton) said that Mr. Hunter had made a direet personal attack against Mr. Coates. Mr. F. W, Schramm ((Government, Auckland E'ast) said that members of the Opposition had described the Bill as Communistic, Bolshevistic and Sovietistic, Mr.. Coates had referred to. it as Nashism. The Government members had a perfect right "to reply. If Mr. Coates identified the personality of Mr. Nash with" a certain philosophy, then Mr. Hunter was in order inquofcing someone who had described Mr, Coates as the leader of the Soviet in New Zealand. The Bev. C. L, Carr (Government, Timaru) said that members had not only the right to examine a charge, but also to examine the qualifications qnd bona fides of those making it. The Speaker: Is the hon. member suggesting that a full right of reply is not given? Mr. Carr : I am not making any suggestion of xmfairneSs on the part of the Speaker. I ain considering a supposititions case, and suggesting it should be open to members on this side of the House to reply not only by direct argument but to examine very strictly and very exaptingly the qualifications of those making the charge. , Speaker's Reply. "I nnderstand the po'xnt of order to he that statements have been permitted during the debate on Communism and Moscow and that a full right of reply should therefore be permitted," said the Speaker. "It is true that Communism and Moscow have been introduced into the debate by Opposition speakers — the arguments are not unfamiliar to the House — but juch references were, with one or perhaps two exceptions, related. to the Bill, which, it has been suggested, is Communistic or iuspired by Communis* tio ideas or practices. "Tho Minister of . Finance has been referred to, in conneetion with tbe legislation introduced by him, as a diotator, and in the same conneetion he has been compared with the heads of certain European States whero a nondemocratio system of Government obtains. It has also been alleged, by, the member for Stratford, I think, that the Minister gained the ideas which are re'flected in the Bill on his visit to Moscow and that his general philosophy was based upon or iuspired by, Moscow ideas— or words to that effect. "As Speaker I am neither entitled nor required to take exception to such comparisons as those mentioned, which related to the Bill or to the problems covered by it, with the possible exception of the statement that the Minister of Finance took his general philosophy, from Moscow sources. This clearly was irreievant. However, it happened to form the concluding part of a sentence which was relevant, and as the relevant observation was only a passing one and the subjeet was not pursued, I did not feel called upon to intervene. Why Ruling Was Given. "The honourable member for Manawatu, in opening his speech, was proceeding to state the contents of what appeared to be a newspaper clipping to the effect that the member for Kaipara was the head of a soviet, and gave as authority for the statement a Mr. Uoidge. I ruled out the honourable member's references for the reasons that it did not appear to be a reply to statements made in the course of the debate, but merely a personal allusion to the member for Kaipara by oue outside this Honse, and that it was not relevant in any way to the Bill or to arguments usea in conneetion with the Bill, Any arguments in reply to relevant statements already mado in the course of debate are obviously tliemselves relevant."