M.P. REBUKED.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 August 1922, Page 5

M.P. REBUKED.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGES. •INCIDENT IN THE HOUSE. LABOR MEMBER’S ACTION. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Wellington, Last Night; When the House assembled this afternoon the Speaker reminded members that yesterday the Premier had asked ' him to look into the memorandum cir-' 1 culated by the member for Lyttelton (Mr. J. McCombs) in connection with his Proportional Representation and County Quota Bill and say whether or not he considered that such memorandum was a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House. The Speaker reviewed the circumstances of the case as telegraphed yesterday, and having done so, announced that he considered the action of the member most improper, and that for the future he could not accept any assurance that the member might give, but he w r ould carefully scrutinise any document presented by him for circulation. He further intimated that in his opinion the memorandum in question was a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House. The Premier said that in view of that intimation he proposed to take further action later in the afternoon. Subsequently, Mr. Massey interrupted the proceedings to move that Mr. McCombs was guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House. He said he had already expressed the opinion that the action of the member for Lyttelton was wrong and improper. The offence, however. was aggravated by the fact that the Speaker and an officer of the House were misled. When a man of decent instinct# made a mistake., the first thing he did was to get up and apologise, but he looked in vain for an expression of regret or repentance from the member for Lyttelton.

NO REGRETS. Mr. McCombs: I have nothing to re 1 gret. Mr. Massey pointed out that any member or body of electors had a perfect right to petition the representation commissioners with reference to any alteration of boundaries. Such a petition had been presented by the people in his (Mr. Massey’s) qwn district. The serious part of the offence was that the Speaker and the reader df the Bills and papers were misled into allowing an objectionable paragraph to appear, and on that ground he moved that Mr. McCombs has been guilty of a breach of t?ie privileges of the House. Mr. McCombs, in reply, entered upon a lengthy disquisition on proportional representation in its relation to the Kaiapoi electorate. He admitted that the Reform Party was not getting a fair share of representation in and around Christchurch, and therefore they were trying to get the electorate to suit them. He criticised the action of the representation commissioners in reducing the population of Kaiapoi from 15,995 to 14,525 in order to make the alteration to which he objected. Under proportional representation this sort of thing would be unnecessary. He had been perfectly straightforward in what he had done. He had only made a fair statement of the position, and he wilfully misled no one. He would say what he had already said again and again; he would put it into .Hansard and the Government could just do what it liked.

Sir William Herries' (Taurangal claimed that no member was entitled to put into a memorandum attached to a Bill anything debatable, because the House had no means of altering it. A breach of privilege had been committed inasmuch as Mr. Speaker had been misled by the member for Lyttelton. “GONE TOO FAR.” Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) said he did not agree with the words put into the memorandum by Mr. McCombs. and he himself would not have used them. He quoted authorities on the subject of privilege, and declared that after viewing this position impartially ho could not come to the conclusion that a breach of the privileges of the House had been committed. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the labor Party). said that when the Government raised this question they based their action on certain words of which they complained. Now the Premier moved that a breach of privilege had been committed because Mr. Speaker and an officer of the House had been misled. The member for Lyttelton had assured the House that this was not done intentionally, and the House was bound to accept that assurance. The Hon. W. Nosworthy, speaking as Minister of the Legislature Department, said to his mind the serious part of the offence committed by the member for Lyttelton was the attack made on the representation commissioners. Mr. Me- , Combs was a very slippery member of the House, but this time he had gone too far, and for the future any document emanating, from him would be most carefully scrutinised by the officers of the House.

Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said the words complained of in Mr. McCombs’ memorandum were, the terms of the Premier’s motion, not brought under discussion. What was now complained of was that the Speaker and an officer of the House had been misled. Mr. McCombs had repeatedly stated that he had not intended to mislead anyone, and under standing orders they were bound to accept his statement. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. R. McCallum (Wairau) sought to solve the problem 4>y moving the following amendment: “That whilst accepting the assurance of the member for Lyttelton that he believed the statements in the memorandum to be true, the House is of opinion that he was guilty of grave indiscretion in reflecting on the boundary commissioners under the privilege of the forms of this House; further, the House expresses continued confidence in the commissioners and its regret that a member should libel them in a manner which prevented them from obtaining redress in the Supreme Court.” \ The Premier said he could not accept the amendment, though it was a great deal stronger against the member for Lyttelton than his own motion. The amendment failed to find a seconder and was not further discussed. The motion moved by the Premier was put to the House, and on a division it was carried by 44 votes to 21.