ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 254, 26 October 1932, Page 9

ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

MR. STALLWORTHY'S PROTEST

MB. MASTERS AND PICTURE BUSINESS. USE OF MINISTERIAL POWERS. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. There were some tense moments in the House last night when, in the course of a vigorous protest against, the use of Orders-in-Council for legislative purposes, the Government member for Eden, Mr. A. J. Stallwortliy, referred to the association of the Minister of Industries afld Commerce, the Hon. R. Masters, M.L.C., with the picture theatre business. Mr. Stallwortliy declared that the Minister had used most extraordinary powers in a most outrageous way. Although the Government had taken no notice of repeated requests that it safeguard small retailers from ruination through price-cutting, Mr.. Masters had usurped the powers of Parliament to protect the theatre proprietors against a strong combination. "In this connection," added Mr. Stallworthy, "it was reported that the Minister's action was taken to safeguard liis own private interests. Mr. S. G. Smith (Government, New Plymouth): That 13 not so. Mr. Stallwortliy (warmly): I am not saying that it is, but it was reported widely throughout New Zealand— Mr. Smith: That is very untruthful— Calling Mr. Stallwortliy to order, Mr. Speaker said it was as bad for a mem•jer to say certain things had been reported as to allege they had been done. He did not know what the objective of Mr. Stallworthy was but to lead the inference that the report was possibly true. Criticism Allowable. "We have to be careful in referring to members of the Upper House," said Mr. Speaker, "but at the same time if a member of the Upper House' is also a Minister of the Crown, it would be unreasonable of me to prevent him from coming under criticism, and I have endeavoured to allow criticism because he is a Minister of the Crown. Statements should not be made that could certainly be interpreted as reflecting on the character of a member of the Upper House."

Mr.' Stallworthy said he had no wish to be unfair to the Minister. Hie point concerned a very grave constitutional position. He had referred to the report because, upon hearing it, he had personally interviewed the Minister and drawn his attention to the rumours. "I asked the Minister if it were true," said Air. Stalhvorthy. "He said it was true that he was interested in a picture theatre business, and that when a Dig combination came along and threatened that unless they were given a voice in the directorate and a share in the earnings—when it came to threatening like that he felt he was justified in taking those extraordinary powers;". Labour Members: Oh, oh I "No Protection to Others." Mr. Stallworthy said that he would be the last to cast derogatory aspersions on anyone, but when there were men in" his own electorate" who were being harassed by big combinations, and representations for relief had been made in vain, he felt that he was justified. in speaking. No protection had been given these small men, who had an outstanding case. He had mentioned that most extraordinary powers were invoked in one particular realm of competition that was in a better position to withstand a challenge than other sections of the commercial and industrial activity and competition.

Mr. Stallworthy concluded by vigorously protesting against th* use of the Order-in-Council for legislative purposes, instead of giving effect to the voice of Parliament.