PAPANUI HALE BILL

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22804, 1 September 1939, Page 12

PAPANUI HALE BILL

MR R. M. MACFARLANE IN CHARGE “ETIQUETTE HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED” • (From Our Parliamentary Reporter;! WELLINGTON, August 31. The Papanui Memorial Hall is in the electorate of the member for Christchurch North, Mr S. G. Holland (Opposition) ; but the Papanui Memorial Hall Enabling Bill, which transfers control of the hall to the Christchurch-City Council, was 'in charge in the House of Representatives tb-day, of the member for Christchurch South, Mr R. M. Maciarlane (Government). This fact gave rise to some sharp criticism during the second reading .debate. Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, Stratford) said that a regrettable feature of the bill was that, while it was concerned with a building in the electorate of the member for Christchurch North, it was in charge of the member for Christchurch South. “Apparently the member for Christchurch North has not been consulted,” said Mr. Poison. “He has been entirely disregarded in this case. Any member on the Government side would be pretty annoyed if a bill were promoted by another member, dealing with his constituency. Etiquette has not' been observed, and I very much regret it. I think that the ordinary etiquette should have been observed. . I don’t suppose it was done with the idea of hurting the member for Christchurch North; but probably through ignorance. It should not be tpken as a precedent.” “I have no complaints to make,” said Mr Holland; “but I did feel that the City Council might have done the courteous thing, and seen that . the member for the district was instrumental iri getting the bill through the House.”

Probably, lack of. experience caused the incident, said the Acting-Leader, of the House (the Hon. P. Fraser). There was no intention to slight the member for Christchurch North. There was an etiquette in the House which rightly provided that the member for a locality should handle business connected with that locality, because members were, alter all. not members of a political party, but representatives of their districts.

“This is probably’a matter that affects the whole of Christchurch,” .said Mr Fraser. “The country should know that there has been no pettiness on the part of the Government. The member for Stratford did fulfil a service in pointing out an irregularity. Certain ethics, as well as the privileges of this House, have to be maintained.” -• Mr Macfarlane assured Mr Holland and'the House that there was no intention to slight another member. The bill concerned not only the people of Christchurch North, blit all the ratepayers of Christchurch, and the City Council had placed the bill in his hands, overlooking the fact that the hall was actually< in Christchurch standing.” said Mr Macfarlane, “and not to any desire to slight the member for Christchurch North.” The bill was passed.