NO BY-ELECTION FOR PATEA

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27368, 5 June 1954, Page 6

NO BY-ELECTION FOR PATEA

Government Decision Criticised

VIEWS OF FORMER CLERK OF HOUSE

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, June 4.

The Government’s decision not to hold, a by-election to fill the Patea seat, in Parliament, from which Mr W. A. Sheat recently resigned, is criticised in a letter to the editor of the “Evening Post” from a former Clerk of the House of Representatives, Mr T. D. H. Hall.

Mr Hall says: “ ‘This honourable House’ is a description one would not wjsh to see tarnished.

“My knowledge of Mr Sheat was gained mainly after his appearance in the House. His public career had revealed an uncompromising attitude towards what he coils jeered to be unjust treatment. Many would sympathise. It is open to question whether he was justified in resigning over a personal difference Tyith his party. ‘T would point out that tightening of the party organisation and its control of considerable funds has practically destroyed the independence of members n which was a feature of the House of Commons when it was established, and also of our own House.

“I cannot say that a spectacular appeal from an executive decision to the people who elected Mr Sheat was an unnecessary reminder' of this new danger that faces our Parliamentary system.

“The delay in taking statutory steps following Mr Sheafs resignation assumes importance when coupled with the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr Holland), published on May 28, that a bill would be passed at the beginning of the new session (June 22), dispensing with a by-election.

Requirements of Law “When the Speaker received the resignation, he knew there ’ was a vacancy, and the cause,” Mr Hall says. “That is all he has to declare in the Gazette, and he must forthwith issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Writs. I am sure that is.the proper inter 7 pretation of three sub-sections in the act, and that was Sir Charles Statham’s view. He refused to allow Government or departmental convenience to delay performance of his statutory duty.

“Mr-Sheafs resignation was handed in on May 14. The Speaker’s notification was published not on May 29 (the first issue of the Gazette after receipt), but on May 27, followed immediately by the Prime Minister’s declaration. No writ was issued until legal proceedings were threatened (June 2).

“Had the normal procedure been followed, it would have been possible before Parliament met for nominations to be in, and in the absence of candidates from either party, as indicated, Mr Sheat .would have been declared elected. No legislation would have been possible. “It is not in accord with the dignity of Parliament for an announcement to be made that a bill will be passed All that the Queen’s representative says in his address at the opening is that a bill will be presented for consideration. If the announcement was made with the concurrence of the Labour Party, it cannot escarp the deductions that will be made from the fact that Mr Sheat was a former mem-'" ber of the party. “It is proper to announce beforehand the introduction of a bill to prevent an injustice under existing legislation. The bill envisaged takes away existing rights without remedy. When Mr Sheat resigned as a protest—an approved practice—he knew that under the law there must be an election, and that he could be nominated for reelection.

“When his resignation was received, and thereby made irrevocable, it was announced that no election would be allowed. His right was to be destroyed, and the electorate was to be disfranchised for a whole session. The Prime Minister’s allotment of representatives is a striking innovation for a democracy. It is the temper of the House of Commons when it tried to exclude John Wilkes,” Mr Hall’s letter concludes. Mr Hall was Clerk of the House from 1930 to 1945, when he retired. Sir Charles Statham was the Speaker from 1923 to 1935.