STRONG WORDS IN HOUSE.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20772, 4 February 1933, Page 14

STRONG WORDS IN HOUSE.

ACCUSATION AGAINST GOVERNMENT. MR PARRY WALKS OUT. [From Ovn Pahijamintakt Rbportir.. ' WELLINGTON, February 3. A mild stir was caused in the House of Representatives this morning when Mr W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) walked out of the Chamber rather than withdraw a charge that the Government was guilty of "contemptible theft" in guaranteeing the banks against exchange losses in that the monev would be taken from the poorer sections of the community to pay those who needed it less. Nearly an hour was spent in discussing the implief+jon of the words, the House finally deciding to take no action after hearing Mr Parrv's explanation. The House was in committee on the Banks Indemnity (Exebange) Bill when the incident occurred, and as soon as Mr Parry mad© his charge he was called upon to withdraw the words by the Chairman of Committees (Mr S. G. SmithJ. Mr Parry: 1 absolutely refuse to withdraw. I say it is theft by the Government that is imposing a levy on struggling people to give it to a man with an income of £106,000 in 1928.

Mr Speaker Sent Tor. Mr Speaker was sent lor, and after tho incident had been reported by. the Chairman of Committees, the Minister for finance (the lit. Hon. J. I*. Coates) said he understood Mr larry to say that be refused to vote lor any 'legislation which would give a "bonus" to a man who received an income of £106,000 in 1928, and who would benefit at tho espouse or people in distress. Ho thought Mr Parry was under a misapprehension m suggesting that exporters would receive a subsidy. It was quite possible that not one person in the electorate or Auckland Central referred to by Mr Parry would contribute anything as a result of the higher exchange, lime only would reveal tho position. Inere would be no loss of dignity if Mr Parry acknowledged that he had spoken under a misapprehension. After much argument, Mr speaker said he had to rule that the words were undoubtedly un-Parliamentary. He said private members had their rights, and these had to be guarded, but at. the same time the authority of the House had to be upheld. If the speaker said that the Government was robbing widows and orphans, such an expression did not necessarily amount to"" a breach. Theft was technically defined as meaning the appropriation of a thing with the intention of permanently depriving its owner of possession. It appeared that there may have been a misunderstanding on this occasion.

"Contemptible Theft." Mr Parry said he had remarked that a man named Hiddiiord had rcceiveu au income of £106.000 in 1928 out that not one penny of this had been paid in taxation. There wore thousands of women and children »n Au» district in dire" distress, and lie hau said that if money waß to bo taken from these people to help a pereon with such an income it amounted to theft. Uc had gone further and said contemptible theft. - Mr Coates said Mr Parry evide»ti> thought poor people in his district w«To .to be made to subsidise this man. Labour, in chorus: So they are. The Prime Minister (the Bt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) said that although toe was not in the House at the time, i& appeared that there was no direct roferenco to the Government in Mr Parry's first remark. Ho did not think Mr Parry intended to charge the Government with straight out theft, although, in his opinion, it might lud> been guilty of an inexcusable act. Mr Parry: Surely the Prime Minister does not believe that he personally would be responsible for thieving from children, but the effect of the legislation is to thieve from them. Withdrawal from House. As Mr Parry refused to withdraw when again requested by Mr Speaker, ho then retired from the Chamber. There was further argument after he had gone, and on Mr Speaker's suggestion the Prime Minister moved that the House express its regret that Mr Parry had not withdrawn the remark, but that after hearing his explanation no further action be taken in view ol the fact that nothing dishonourable had been imputed. This motion was carried, one or two Labour members dissenting.