POINT OF ORDER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 234, 3 October 1935, Page 9

POINT OF ORDER.

BROADCASTING BOARD "SCANDAL AND OUTRAGE." QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Describing it as a "scandal" and an 'outrage," members. of the Labour party expressed keen indignation at a ruling given in the House to-day by the Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. A. Nash), during a debate oil the Estimates, that the affairs of the Broadcasting Board could not be discussed, in view of the fact that there was no vote allotted to the board. On the motion of Mr. W. A. Veitch (Democrat, Wanganui), Mr. Speaker was called for and he upheld the chairman's decision.

The question arose when Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) entered a protest against the dismissal of a youth from the broadcasting service in Christchurcli, and accused Mr. H. G. Livingstone, a member of the Broadcasting Board, of using liis position in making certain threatening and unjus-. t i fin bio remarks.

While Mr. Sullivan was speaking the Hon. S. G. Smith, a former Chairman of Committees, rose to a point of order, and said that Mr. Sullivan was not in order in discussing this particular matter.

Mr. Nash gave it as his ruling that the matter could not bo discussed, as it was purely a Departmental question.

Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) and Mr. Sullivan protested against this ruling, Mr. Sullivan declaring that it was a scandal. Important Principle. Mr. W. A. Veitch said that a most important principle was involved. He was not concerned with the matter under discussion, but he protested against a ruling that the Broadcasting Board, which had the power to collect large sums of money and to spend them, should be exempted from all discussion and protected against any criticism. It was a grave national issue. Was the Railway Board to be treated in the same manner? There were a large number of boards in New Zealand, practically governing the country outside Parliament, and they must be extremely careful before they permitted such a ruling to go without being challenged. "It is a most amazing thing to me," added Mr. Veitch, "and it will come as a great shock to the people when they realise that Parliament has delegated its authority to boards to such an extent that their administration may not be discussed." He moved that Mr. Speaker should be summoned and asked to give his decision upon it. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. M. J. Savage) agreed with Mr. Veitch. The question was too serious to be allowed to stay where it was, ho said. The Labour party had protested again and again against the setting up of .boards, and this appeared to be the end of the section. Where were they getting to if they were not allowed to discuss the salaries of Ministers and other officers of the Departments? "I am entitled to criticise the Postmaster-General if I want to," he said, "but' the chairman says I cannot. I want to get Mr. Speaker's opinion on this. This is not the way to get the Estimates through, I can tell you that. It is unprecedented. Broadcasting is part of the telegraph service, and to be told we cannot say anything about it is an outrage."

Mr.'Nash said that he had ruled that all reference to the Broadcasting Board was out of order.

When Mr. Speaker returned to the House tho Chairman of Committees explained that he had ruled under Standing Order 575 that as there was no vote for the Broadcasting Board in the Estimates and .that the question that had been raised was purely a Departmental matter it could not be discussed. Control of Expenditure. Mr. Veitch said that his motion was based on an important matter of principle. If the ruling of the chairman was sustained the position would have been established under existing law that not only had Parliament delegated to the Broadcasting Board the power to expend public money, but it had also passed over control without any authority of Parliament itself. lie declared that a mos-t important ancient national principle was involved, and he urged that there should be the greatest determination for, Parliament to hold on to its right to control public expenditure. The Leader of the Opposition said the relay of the speech of the Mayor of Cliristchurch could not have taken place if it had not been for the Post and Telegraph service. "If that does not bring the Post and Telegraph Department into it" he declared, "then I'm a Dutchman." He maintained that if the committee was not allowed to discuss the question of broadcasting on, say, tho DirectorGeneral's salary, it had lost control of it altogether. Mr W Bodkin (Government, Central Otago) said he thought members were confusing the term "committee of supply" with that of "Parliament The Postmaster-General. M.r. _A. Hamilton, suggested that thp principle at stake was that the committee was discussing items in the estimates ratlier than the public accounts. The Broadcasting Board operated independent and separate accounts. Legislation provided that the board must submit its report to Parliament and it was quite in order then for Parliament to discuss its affairs. He had not heard before of the case mentioned by the member for Avon and he did not know whether it would be correct for him to say to the board that it had got to reinstate that voung man. . That,- he thought, might lie usurping the power and authority or the board. He submitted that there was no item in the estimates under consideration under which the affairs of the board could be discussed. Rule of 1868. Mr. Speaker, in giving his ruling, said that the duties of the committee of supply were simply and exclusively to appropriate the revenue and it had no other function. That had been laid down in 1808 and supported by subsequent rulings by authorities. It had been stated that the rights of members would 'be curtailed if the chairman s ruling were upheld, but he would point out that there were a great many other things that could not be discussed in committee of supply. Tt was simply a question of discussing the particular items in the estimates. Tt was one of the ratlier nir>e points that could be raised, but he was bound to say that he must uphold the chairman's ruling. Mr. Speaker assured Mr. Veitch that the fact that the committee could not discuss the matter that ' had been brought forward did not mean that the powers of Parliament wcic being weakened.