MINISTER'S CHALLENGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 184, 6 August 1925, Page 13

MINISTER'S CHALLENGE.

MR. CORRIGAN'S CHARGES.

SIR JAS. PARR IH REPLY.

LIFTING THE CLOAK OF

PRIVILEGE,

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Wednesday.

Mr. J. R. Corrigan, member for Patea, has not so far substantiated his'charges made in the House recently that a Minister of the Crown owned land near the site of a new railway station on the Henderson line. The Minister of Education, Sir James Parr, in whose electorate Henderson is situated, has now publicly challenged the member to repeat his allegation outside the House of Representatives. The Minister to-night made available for publication his correspondence with Mr. Corrigan on the subject. On July 31 Sir James wrote to Mr. Corrigan as follows:— You stated in the House that it was a very significant fact that one of the Ministers owned all the land adjacent to where a new railway- station was going on the Henderson line and that the land was going to be cut up for the benefit of the Minister. The obvious inference rrom your remarks was either that the station is being erected Tor the benefit of such member of the Government or that such member of the Government Is wrongfully. or Improperly using his position as a member of the Government for his. own private profit. The locality rererred to by you is situate in my electorate and your statement has led people to believe that I am the member of the Government to whom you rerer. When I asked you In the House to what Minister you rererred your reply was, " You know him," a reply calculated only to strengthen the belief which Is likely to arise rrom your original statement. If your statement was Intended to rerer to mc, then I say not only Is It untrue, but it Is without any kind of foundation whatever, ir you intended to rerer to some other member or the Ministry I believe your statement to be equally untrue, but at present I am concerned only so far as the matter affects mc personally. Up to the present, although pressed by the Prime Minister to clear the matter up, you have deliberately Tailed to do so. A fortnight has gone by and you have sat silent. By this conduct (you leave the whole Ministry, but more especially myself, under suspicion of seriously abusing the Ministerial position. Under these circumstances I feel that I am entitled to have from you a definite statement one way or tbe other as to whether or not you intended your statement to rerer to mc. ir you. did so intend then I Invite you to repeat your statement outside the House in such a way and under such circumstances—l mean, or course, without the protection or privilege—as to entitle mc to give you the opportunity of justifying your statement ir you can. That opportunity I undertake to give you at the earliest possible moment arter the repetition or your statement, otherwise than under tbe shelter of privilege, ir, on the other hand, you did not intend to refer to mc, I reel that I am entitled to ask you to say so unequivocally and to indicate to what Minister you did reler, so that he may take appropriate action in the matter. I must ask you to be good enough to favour mc with an immediate reply. Failing a reply by midday to-morrow I shall hold myseir at liberty to publish this letter in the newspaper press. Mr. Corrigan replied as follows:— I note the contents or your letter. I stni repeat the statement I made in the House In answer to tbe Prime Minister when he brought the matter up. I have written ror the particulars and Immediately I receive them I will hasten to let yourseir, through the House, know the information. I am just as anxious to expedlate matters as any member, of the House, but until I have the particulars you will quite understand I cannot place myseir in a false position. You and your brother Ministers need not be frightened that I will not play the frame and it it is necessary for mc to withdraw the statement and apologise 1 will be only too pleased to do so. The Minister replied to Mr. Corrigan on August 4 as follows: — I must express surprise at what you say. Your charge was made so rar back as July 13. That is three weeks past. You now say "I have written for the particulars." The inference to be drawn is either that yon made, the charge without having any particulars or that you made - it upon information which you had neglected to.take any stops to verify. You say in your letter that until you have particulars you cannot "place yourself in a false position," but surely by making a public charge, without Invtnpf the "particulars" or upon information which you nefrieeted to verify, you have already placed yourself in a false position as a public man? Do you not also sec that, by inferontially making a charge airninst mc yoti have placed mc in a "false position" until that/ charge is either proved ov admitted to he raise and Toundationless as I tell you" it is} You say that I need not be frightened that you will not "play the game." You have had ample time to take what is generally considered the right course In such cfrcumst.inres, and I again extend to you the invitation contained in my previous letter to repeat your statement otherwise than under the cloak or privilege, so that I may take legal action in the matter. Unless you adopt that course by 5 p.m. to-morrow I shall hand this correspondence out for publication so that the public may judge how you'are "playing the game."

Mr. Corrigan spoke for a full hour in the Budget debate to-night, but made no reference to. Henderson.