POLITICAL METAPHOR

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 792, 12 October 1929, Page 8

POLITICAL METAPHOR

“ROBBERY” CALLS FORTH PROTEST

RALLY IN HOUSE THE SUE’S Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Friday. That political metaphor might be taken literally led to a lively rally in the House today, when the term “robbery” roused the cry of “point of order.” Labour members had made an eloquent plea for restoration of the Post and Telegraph salaries’ cut. Mr. R. Semple (Wellington East) raised an early objection, saying that the Government had robbed employees of part of their salaries by the “cut.” Reform Members: Point of order. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Riccarton), who caught the chairman's eye, and asked whether the term “robbing” was parliamentary. He submitted that it was not. Mr. S. G. Smith, chairman of committees, took it that Mr. Semple had not used the term in an offensive way. Mr. Semple assured the House to that effect. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Thames) did not know what construction could be placed upon the remark, if it was not that somebody had been robbed. Robbing meant only one thing. There was no other construction to be placed on the term. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton): Might I suggest that the world was used in the same way as the term Bolshevik is thrown across the floor of the House. Mr. D. Jones (Mid-Canterbury) said that there was no doubt that robbing meant stealing something from somebody. If it was right to say that the Government had rohbed somebody it was right for him to accuse the Post-master-General of being a robber. (Laughter.) He submitted that the term was unparliamentary. The legal aspect was explained by the Minister of Justice, t the Hon. T. M. Wilford, who said that anybody could say hard things against the Government or a local body, but immediately the same things were said about an individual there was ground for action. Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said that Mr. Semple had distinctly stated that the Reform Party had robbed the postal employees by taking something away from their wages. Mr. McCombs: You don’t want to deny it, do you? Mr. Wright said that the point was that the language was, in his opinion, unparliamentary. “But nevertheless true,” observed Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon). “It may be true that you are not allowed to say hard things of an individual but a group of individuals who have been libelled can take action,” said Mr. Wright. The Leader of the Labour Party. Mr. H. E. Holland, said he was quite sure that nobody wanted to use language that was offensive. Pie contended that the term “robbery” was used in the same way as “confiscation” in respect to land taxation. The Chairman of Committees suggested that Mr. Semple should withdraw, That would settle the matter. Mr. Jones: What? Suggest? A Voice: Demand. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Napier) said that Mr. Semple had a delightfully breezy way with him, and he was quite sure that he did not mean anything offensive. The committee would be better occupied with getting on with the business of the country instead of wasting time. The Chairman of Committees said that he did not think that Mr. Semple meant criminal robbery. “Oh, no, just playful robbery,” interjected Mr. Samuel. After that the little breeze died away, and Mr. Semple resumed his plea for the restoration of the salary I “cuts.”