PARLIAMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 206, 11 September 1901, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

(By Telegraph—Parliamentary Reporter.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(By Telegraph—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WE_.__l_.GTO_. Tuesday.

PRIVILEGE.

At half-past two, when the House 'resumed, such was the absorbing interest of the question that only half a dozen members responded to the summons of the bell. When a quorum had been got together Mr Herries took up the question. He complained that the course suggested by the Premier cast a stigma on every member of the Goldfields Committee, the conclusion being drawn from the circumstances that no one outside the committee supplied it. He considered the communication made by Mr Cohen to the Acting-Speaker was an aggravation of the offence and that the Premier's motion would enable any witness to defy the power of the Parliamentary Committee, or even that of the House itself. Mr Fraser (Wakatipu) had no doubt the reporter had counted the risk when he sent the matter to his paper, and that being so he ought to suffer the cost. Mr Thomson (Clutha) said the standing order upon which the present proceeding's were taken did not serve any good purpose, and he would be glad to see it abolished. Mr Witheford thought the discussion fruitless an, that every hour wasted in profitless debate represented so much waste of public money. Members were in the habit of blaming the Government for not proceeding with the business of the country while they put obstacles in the way. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr Fisher) appeared to have a standing grievance against the press because they did not give prominence to his little speeches. He contended that jtbe publication which had been pronounced a breach of privilege had done no injury to a living soul and that the discussion was : a waste of time. Mr O'Meara would not be a party to making a scapegoat of Mr Cohen, but. he was in favour of imposiug a moderate fine. Mr Barclay insinuated that breaches 'of privilege would be used for swelling the circulation of newspapers if the present offence were to go unpunished. He thought the publisher ! should be brought to the bar and a fine inflicted. Mr. Hornsby made a capital speech, iHe questioned whether many members of the House were animated by as high a sense of honour as the person who had published the evidence complained of. He ridiculed the present proceedings in the face of the fact that members were continually supplying privileged information to the press. What had surprised him was that no member had made any reference to the disclosures that had come to light as the result of the evidence adduced before the committee. Mr Cohen had acted up to the highest traditions of the press. Mr Massey charged the Premier with neglecting to uphold the dignity of Parliament. He thought the proprietors and publisher ought to be called to the bar of the House and that if they refused to answer the questions a moderate fine be inflicted. The Premier said if the amendment were carried it would be a gross violation of all constitutional precedents. To inflict a fine without hearing the offenders at the bar of the House would be contrary to every sense of justice. He quoted records showing that where a member who transgressed the rules of the House apologised for having done so this was adjudged sufficient and no further proceedings were taken. He declared the main motive of the Opposition was to get at a third person and because they could not get at him they desired to make a scapegoat of Mr Cohen. No doubt Mr Fisher had reason to feel sore at the treatment he had received from the press of the colony but this was not the proper opportunity to pay the newspapers out. Mr Wilford said all admitted .hat a breach of privilege had been committed, and the sole question was the nature of the penalty. This was a case for the First Offenders Probation Act. (Laughter.) Mr Pirani said the whole object of the Premier's motion was to divert attention from the real offender. In his opinionl the evidence could only have been supplied by the clerk or the chairman of the Goldfields Committee. Mr Palmer: "Do you mean I did it?" Mr Pirani: "You may take what meaning you like of it." Mr Palmer asked that the words be taken down. He said in a mean underhanded way it had been insinuated that he furnished the information. Mr Pirani said it was only an implication. I The Acting-Speaker said to his mind the language used would produae the impression that Mr Palmer's statement made before the Committee and repeated in the House had been incorrect. It was not permitted to a member to refuse to receive an assurance given by,another member. _fr Pirani withdrew the remark, and expressed regret at having used the words and the incident dropped. He was proceeding to state that the Premier was desirous of shielding a third party. The Premier gave the statement a most unqualified denial. There was not a tittle of truth in it. Mr Pirani: "Then all I have to say is that the Premier's statement is untruthful." J'he Acting-Speaker called upon the hon. member to withdraw the statement. Mr Pirani: "I withdraw it, and say there is not a tittle of truth in it." The \_cting-Speaker again demanded the -withdrawal of this remark. Mr Piran". again withdrew the remarks. Mr Jackson Palmer, in a spirited speech, indignantly repudiated the attack made upon him by Mr Pirani. The House divided on Mr Fisher's amendment, who was negatived by 42 to 18. The Minister for Mines moved that the words "as satisfactory" in the Premier's motion be struck out. At the evening! sitting the public interest in the debate was attested by crowded galleries, especially the portion of the House allotted to the fair sex, where many were obliged to stand. Mr Massey demanded that before the motion waß amended the House

should be clearly informed of what was to be substituted for the worda existed. Mr Pirani theught the amendment which the Minister for Mines intended, to move on the Premier's niotiim was dictated by the caucus which was held after the House adjourned at one o'clock. The Premier deprecated a case of this kind being perverted for party purposes. He charged Mr Fraser (Wakatipu), Mr Allen (Bruce), and others with holding a brief on behalf of Mr Cook, of whom a great deal had been heard lately throughout the colony. From this point the direct opposition developed a mild form of stonewall. Mr Fisher declared that the letter from the "Star" representative sent to the Acting-Speaker and read in the House in the morning was not only an insult but was the most impudent letter ever received by the House. The Minister for Railways said one might suppose that hon. members were growing weary of the subject. He strongly condemned as unfair and un-English the proposal to inflict a fine without affording the alleged offender an opportunity of defending himself. He maintained that the only remedy was to amend the Standing Orders so as to bring them into line with the times. Mr Atkinson said he failed to see what connection there could be between the breach of privilege and the business transactions of Mr Cook. He accused the "Star" representative of flouting the House, and asking for an amendment in the Standing Orders so that he might be in a better position to supply good copy to his newspaper. Mr McNab was speaking up to half past ten o'clock, the hour appointed for the !3peaker to leave the chair, which he did accordingly, and the House rose.