BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 196, 20 August 1931, Page 3

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

NO FURTHER. ACTION.

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE.

REVIEW OF STANDING ORDER,

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, this day.

The Houee after a long discussion yesterday decided that no further action be taken on the breach of privilege adjudged against Messrs. Bond and Bond, Ltd., of Auckland, and the "New Zealand Herald," arising out of the dispatch of a letter and the publication of a full-page advertisement commenting on a speech of the United member for Waikato (Mr. F. Lye) which denounced the trading coupon system.

In moving.that in view of the report of the Select Committee (presented yesterday) no further action be taken, the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, said that the explanations given by the parties concerned showed clearly that what had been done wae done unwittingly of the Standing Orders relating to breach of privilege. Before the matter was raised in the House, the point had been submitted to Mr. Speaker, who had considered that a breach had been committed. The committee had recommended that the question of the procedure to be followed regarding future breaches be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for report, and this would be done with a view to arriving at a clearer definition as to what constituted a breach of privilege. What is a Breach? Mr. E. A. Wright (Reform, Wellington Suburbs) said it was impossible at present for anyone outeide Mr. Speaker to say what was a breach and what was not. When a member made a strong attack on some firm outside the House that firm should have the opportunity of defending itself. That was only British justice.

Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South): Mr. Lye mentioned no firm. Mr. Wright: But I think everyone knew who was intended. "It seems," lie added, "that any member can hit anyone outside the House, but when an attempt ie made to hit back it is a breach of the privileges of the House." Mr. Wright said it was possible the Standing Orders Committee might be able to arrive at something that would help members, newspapers and business firms in determining what constituted a breach. Mr. W. E. Ba.nard (Labour, Napier) said there was no doubt the language ii<;ed by the member for Waikato was strong and left him open to the charge that he was intemperate. It seemed that the present procedure could be altered with some advantage to the House and the country. It was the first time that a breach had been committed under the guise of a newspaper advertisement, it would be unfortunate if members of Parliament could be brought into ridicule by newspaper advertisements. Xhat would not be in the best interests of the House or the country. Mr. A. Harris (Reform, Waitemata) said the whole question was raised whether the member for Waikato did not leave himself open to criticism for launching an attack on a reputable firm. He said he was not at all sure that the particular member should not be prepared to accept responsibility for any statement he made in the House, nor was he sure that the criticism to which Mr. Lyo had given utterance did not call for some reply. The whole thing seemed veiy petty and email, and he regretted very much that it had been brought up at all. Apology Accepted. "I have no desire that this matter should develop into a long debate on party lines or otherwise," said Mr. Lye, who went on to express resentment of the imputation that he had made an attack on a particular firm. He had not attacked a firm, but a system of trading, and he had nothing to add or take away. Bond and Bond, by the publication of the advertisement, had indentified themselves with the particular method of doing business. If they chose to do that it had nothing to do with him. He had no feeling of ill-will, and he wae not vindictive, and he freely accepted the expression and apology made by the newspaper and by the firm. Mr. Lye said he strongly resented his photograph appearing in the advertisement. (Reform laughter). "I know it attracted a good deal of attention," added Mr. Lye, with a smile, "but I think it was a piece of impertinence that my photograph should have been used." A Member: It would add to the virtue of the advertisement. Mr. Lye: Surely a member can attack a system without having his name associated with brands of tea and brands of soap. He added that he had been disturbed about the matter at the time he received the letter, but in bringing the breach of privilege before the notice of the House his only purpose had been the protection of the rights and privileges of members. On future occasions he would also "do Ms little bit" in that direction. Mr. D. Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-bury) said he thought Mr. Lye had made a mistake in thinking that in his speech he was making statements which would not bo taken to refer to any particular firm. He (Mr. Jones) was a member of the Privilege Committee, and he had voted against a breach of privilege being held against the newspaper. The firm of Bond and Bond had a perfect right to

put up a defence. It chose to make that defence through a newspaper, and he considered the firm was in order in issuing a challenge to the in** iber for Waikato. If it did not have wat right it would mean that members could say what they liked in the House. They should not endeavour to put up a wall round them to protect themselves too much from outside sources. People outside the House had a right to seek an immediate explanation of anything said by a ! member.

Personally, he saw nothing against the advertisement, and he was sorry it had been held to be a breach of privilege. The point was important from the viewpoint that newspapers should know what rights they had. At present there was no law concerning privilege and apparently no one could say what was a breach and what was not. Clearer Definition Needed. Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the j Labour party, said he did not think' anyone in the House would or could object to the strongest criticism from outside the House. However, he did not agree that the newspaper concerned in this instance should be free from any censure accorded the firm. It would be better if the law of privilege were definitely and clearly denned. No member wanted to shelter himself behind the privileges of the House. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Government, Central Otago), chairman of the Privilege Committee, said if Bond and Bond had adopted a reasonable method of stating their case the question of privilege would ! never have been raised. But their reply was in the nature of a sensational advertisement, which held a member of the House up to ridicule. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) said he was of opinion that the matter had been settled satisfactorily. He considered that any member should be prepared in ninety-nine cases of a hundred to repeat outside the House any statement he had made within it, but it was possible that one occasion in a hundred would arise when it would be perfectly justifiable and in the public interests for a member to get up and make a statement that could not be made outside.

Mr. W. P. Endean (Reform, Parnell) said he was disappointed at tlae nature of the findings of the Committee. It was for the House to indicate to people outside how far they could go without committing a breach of privilege. A man outside Parliament was not entitled to hamper or prejudice a member in the discharge of his duties. If that was the test, he failed to see how, in this particular case, any damage had been done. Referring to the Sir Walter Buller case in 1895, Mr. Endean said Sir Robert Stout and Sir Francis Bell held, as two eminent barristers had held in the present case, that a challenge issued to a member was not a breach of privilege. The modern advertisement in newspapers was a method not only of advertising goods, but was also a method of clearing characters. There were only two courses open to Bond and Bond —to. go on the platform and prove to an audience that they were not such as had been described by Mr. Lye, or to do so by advertisement, and they chose the latter. Mr. Endean said he would be very pleased when some definite rules were laid down, so that the public could be guided iu regard to their comments concerning members of the House. Mr. J. A. Young (Reform, Hamilton) submitted that when a member made a speech on a public question he should not resent criticism from outside. The Prime Minister's motion was carried, as was also a resolution that it be an instruction to the bianding Orders Committee to consider the Standing Orders, rules and practices of the > House relating to breaches of privilege 'and to report its opinions and recommendations.