HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 207, 12 September 1901, Page 2

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE,

A FINE OF £15 IMPOSED,

The House met at half-past two, | and the debate was resumed on the report of the Privileges Committee. Mr. McNab, whose speech was interrupted when the House adjourned on Tuesday night, was not in the House. The amendment moved by Mr. McGowan to strike out the words "as satisfactory" after the word "accepte" was agreed to on the voices. The Minister of Works then moved to add after "accepts" the following: "The expression of regret of the representative of that journal, and on payment of the sum of £15 this Incuse resolves to proceed no further in the matter." Mr. Massey objected that the amendment did not disclose the name of the person who was to pay the £15. The Premier: The "Dunedin Star." Mr. Symes opposed the amendment, on the ground that the representative of the "Star" had not tendered an apology, but had flouted the House. If Parliament would not assert its own dignity It ought to make a bonfire of it* standing orders, and if tho amendment were carried lie would absolutely refuue to serve in future on any committee of the Mouse. If* insinuated that the representative of the "Dunedin Star" must kmm stolen the evidence, and said if J»# jj*4 a wp»rk of manhood he would of* ap the same «f his informant. Mr, Bollard mUI the amendment wm§ wwi&Hm, m it did not mention

the name of the person who was to pay the fine.

Mr. Hogg appealed to the House to come to a decision on the question, and save further waste of time.

Mr. Hutcheson thought these wretched pettifogging incidents had been intensified by the bungling of the Premier. He thought there was only one course before the House, namely, to pass the resolution to accord the reporter a vote of thanks, and then rise to their feet and sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow." (Laughter.) The member for Wellington City seemed to recognise that the debate afforded a favourable opportunity to gird at the Premier, and he made the most of it. While in the same breath he disavowed any desire to stir up personal feeling, he expressed himself in favour of admitting the press to committee meetings. Mr. McLachlan declared that the speech delivered by the Premier on Tuesday was "laboured, futile, apologetic and an insult to the House," and that the conclusion arrived at was "lame, limp and impotent." Mr. Allan (Bruce) suggested that the motion be amended by imposing a fine of £10 upon the publisher of the "Dunedin Star," and a further fine of £5 upon Mr. Cohen for refusing to answer questions before the Privileges Committee. The Minister of Mines said the evidence was given in a room to which other than the members of the committee had access. He charged the junior member for Wellington City (Mr. Fisher) with having allowed himself to be made the tool of the Opposition in his attitude towards the question under discussion. Members having now made free use of the opportunity of tilting at the Premier would do well to come to a decision. Mr. Collins believed the proper course would have been to have brought the offender to the bar of the House, and, having declared the publication of the evidence a breach of the privileges of the House, to have at once inflicted whatever punishment it deemed proper. He thought the Premier had only consented to modify this motion because his hands had been forced by his own followers.

The Premier said he had,hoped that the House would to-day come to a decision, and with this view he had refrained from speaking. He contended that the reporter's letter was a genuine expression of regret, and was sufficient to satisfy the dignity of the House. What did the Opposition want? Did they want the reporter to go down upon his knees at the bar of the House with a rope round his neck? The Speaker's ruling had never required that an offender should prostrate himself before the House and make an abject apology. He complained tbat the debate had been made an opportunity for a party attack upon himself, and misrepresentation of his» motives. There must, he thought, be some mysterious influence at work in this case. He denied that there had been any bungling, and pointed out that the principle of his resolution had been affirmed by 42 votes to 18. In the course of his remarks he referred to the language of the senior member for Wellington City (Mr Hutcheson) as "Billingsgate." which, however, he immediately withdrew. If the House had been sincere in its paramount desire to uphold its own dignity, and the party element had not been introduced, the House would have adopted his motion with little or no demur. ' Mr Hardy rose to speak, and in his first sentence put his foot into it by accusing the Premier of "Losing his temper in a scandalous manner." Mr Seddon moved that the words be taken down, but the hon. member for Selwyn showed his ability to escape from an awkward position by withdrawing the words, and shortly afterwards he collapsed. Mr G. W. Russell made a violent speech in opposition to the Hon. Mr Hall-Jones' proposal. The Minister of Railways charged the House with performing a solemn farce, and magnifying an ordinary privilege question into a mountain, with a view to showing that the Premier was incapable of leading the House. He contended that if the expression of regret' were accepted by the House it would place this case in the same category with other previously recorded breaches of privilege. He was proceeding to express doubts as to the veracity of certain remarks made by previous speakers when the member for Riccarton interjected: "Do you mean to say there was not a tittle of truth in my statement?" Sir Joseph, with prompt repartee, replied: "I do not know whether there is any truth in your statements or not," and the House, which had developed into a free and easy style, laughed again. The Minister went on to say that the debate had been diverted from the original purpose into a kind of want of confidence discussion. Mr Pirani said there was only a qualified withdrawal and apology by the Dunedin "Star" reporter, and he contended that the latter ought to be brought before the bar of the House and called upon to make a complete and unqualified apology. Mr Witheford thought there had been enough discussion, and that the House ought now to come to a decision. He had seconded the Premier's motion because he desired to end the discussion and get on,with the business of the country. There appeared to be a great difference of opinion among honorable members. Some wanted to behead somebody, others wanted blood, and a third section wanted money. It ought to be borne in mind that every hour wasted in this discussion was tantamount to fining the taxpayers of the country, since the discussion was retarding the business of tbe House and the work of the various departments. He was afraid that the blame was mainly due to the action of members on the opposite side of the House. The whole question at issue'had been reduced to a point by one of tho Kpeakers that day, who had urged that Mr Cohen wonld be a skunk If he divulged tho name of h»» informant, and he ought to be fined if ho didn't. Was not that a flne dilemma to place the Premier in? ,(Mr Hutchcuon; "He put himself Into It.") A wecond of the Houso seemed to think that somebody's head ought to be cat off, but it they achieved their object that would not «iler»ce the gentleman in the gallery. Ifc fc»d

been said that if the motion were passed they might as well hand over the control of the House to the Premier and Mr Cohen, and he (Mr Witheford) had observed that, they were both able men. He referred to ; the case of the breach of privilege committed by the "Daily Mail," and. showed that when it was proposed to bring the publisher to the bar of thej House of Commons Mr Balfour, as] leader of the House, opposed the mo-] tion on the ground that it could do j no good. Instead of wasting time in] hearing the "Star" representative at the bar of the House he would rather hear Mr Vaile on his zone system. If the proposed fine of £15 were divided among the members of the House what value of individual dignity would it represent. He thought the whole question ought to have been settled in five minutes. Mr Fraser (Wakatipu) cotild not approve of any step which did not make an apology by the "Star" representative the first consideration. Mr Monk could not see his way to vote for either the motion or the amendment, because the persons to be fined were not named, and therefore the decision of the House would have no practical effect. Mr Lang moved a prior amendment to that of the Hon. Hail-Jones to strike out the words "the expression of regret*' with a view to inserting "the letter." Mr Fraser (Napier) made a very effective speech on the question, laying special stress on the fact that the opponents of the Government had diverted the debate into a mere party dispute. He contended that Mr Cohen's letter ought to be accepted as a sufficient satisfaction to the dignity of the House. In the course of his remarks he asked why did the members who talked so loudly about the honour of Parliament remain silent when a newspaper (the "Manawatu Standard"), owned by Mr Pirani, M.H.R., charged the House with having last session reached the depths of degradation.

Mr Fisher, who expressed his contempt for the press and all its doings, loudly protested that he would not be frightened by any impertinent, impudent letter "such as that addressed to the Speaker by the Dunedin 'Star' representative."

The Premier, who referred to Mr Fisher's speech as that of a "disappointed man," scouted the insinuation made by that hon. member that he (the Premier) was disposed to climb down from the position he had taken up at the outset of this question. He did not believe that the offending journal had committed the breach of privilege with deliberation, but that the offence was done in an unguarded moment. Who, he asked, was responsible for this prolonged debate? The gentlemen on the Opposition benches. He regarded the proposal to inflict an insignificant fine as derogatory to the dignity of Parliament. Rising .to the occasion, Mr Seddon went on to advocate that the Standing Orders should be so modified as to discontinue bringing to the bar offenders against the rules of the. House, and to set up an independent tribunal, free from partybias, for dealing with cases of privilege. Quoting from the communication to the Speaker, he said, while the writer admitted that he had been led into committing a breach of the privileges of the House through his desire to protect the interest of the public in connection with the mining industry, he pleaded extenuating circumstances. Regarding the caucus of Ministerial supporters, he said he claimed the right to hold such meetings as leader of that party. He believed that behind the action of the Opposition there was a deliberate plan to prevent his reply on the Financial debate, and to obstruct the business of the country.

Mr G. W. Russell proceeded to bore the House and the galleries with a stale rehash of his former arguments, but he had not proceeded very far before he blundered into a rash statement which brought down upon him the prompt rebuke of the Speaker. He declared that the fact that the. Speaker permitted the letter to be read was an insult to the House.

The Premier sprang to his feet and called the Speaker's attention to the reflection cast upon him.

■Mr Guinness demanded immediate withdrawal, with which Mr Russell, in a somewhat. ungracious manner, complied, adding that he . supposed that while such a statement was unparliamentary, a member might carry it in his head. The Acting-Speaker demanded a withdrawal without reserve, and Riccarton again ate humble pie. Mr Witheford, in a humorous speech, protested against the waste of time and money caused by the prolonged debate, artfully insinuating that Mr Fisher must have some sympathetic or monetary interest in the Dunedin "Star," or otherwise, he would not be. so anxious to advertise it throughout the colony, if not all over the world. The House divided on Mr Laing's amendment, which was rejected by 35 to 21. The amendment moved by the Hon. Hall-Jones, imposing a fine of £15, was carried by 35 to 15 votes. Mr' Smith moved a further amendment that the fine be paid by Mr John George Moody, publisher of the Dunedin "Star," within seven days. The Premier said he did not approve of the amendment, and he accused the. Opposition of endeavouring to pose before the country as the champions of Parliamentary privilege. That. £15 had been deliberately adopted because the Government did not desire to place the names of the reporter and the publisher on record. From the outset there had been a deliberate design on the part of a section of the House to flout him (the Premier), and to pose before the country as the masters of the situation. Mr Monk, commenting on the Premier's att.iturtc, declared that it was neither gentlemanly nor courteous, svnd narrowly evaded, being- reprimanded by the Speaker by withdrawing the words as quickly as Mr Seddon rose to his feet to call attention to the language. One of the peculiar features of this stupid debate has been the celerity with which members, after using unparliamentary language, scuttled nway like rabbit* into their burrows, withdrawing the objectionable language" an «oon an the Premier rose to his

feet to call the Speaker's attention to the expressions.

The Minister of Railways accused the Opposition of insincerity. On Tuesday they had clamoured for the imposition oi a fine. On Wednesday when a division was taken on the question, they went into the lobby against it.

At this stage the virulence of the attack ou the Premier seemed to have exhausted itself, and the tide of battle rolled back to the Opposition, who were now placed on the defensive, and many of whom .ought to excuse their action in connection with the divisions.

Mr Smith's amendment to insert the name of the publisher as the person liable for the fine was lost by 31 to IS. The motion, as amended, was carried by 35 to 16.

The net result of two whole clays' discussion, at a cost to the country of some* £500, is that the Premier has cleverly engineered what is practically his original motion through the House by overwhelming majorities, whilst the Dunedin "Star" has obtained a splendid advertisement at a cost of £ 15, which about covers the amount of the shorthand writer's fee for taking down the evidence.