MR SHAND’S STATEMENT

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28666, 16 August 1958, Page 14

MR SHAND’S STATEMENT

WELLINGTON, August 15. The following explanation of his actions and feelings in relation to the incident in which he was “named” in the House of Representatives this morning was contained in a statement issued by Mr T. P. Shand today: “The Prime Minister last night gave notice of his intention to extend the hours of sitting of the House at a stage of the session when the committees of the House have most of their work ahead of them, when manv departmental reports have still to be considered and when conscientious members are fully extended in carrying out their task effectivelv even with normal sitting hours.

“Although we had read in the newspapers speculation as to the Prime Minister’s proposed overseas tours, the House had not been informed directly until this morning.

“The Prime Minister this morning introduced his motion to extend the sittings of the House until midnight each niaht without even at that staf’e doing the House the courtesv of giving r an v reason or explanation. “The Leader of the Onnosition in a very quiet and courteous speech pointed out to tho Prime Minister that he had given no reason to support his motion or justify the unusual procedure, and invited him to elaborate on the motion before the matter was discussed further. “I do not dispute that when the Prime Minister rose in response to the invitation from the

(New Zealand Press Association) Leader of the Opposition the Speaker used the words: ‘The Prime Minister in reply,” but I did not hear them, -and it is not without significance that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor Mr Marshall, who was proposing to speak next, nor my bench mate who also intended to speak, heard the significant words. “I am now informed that the Speaker did not use the words until after the Prime Minister had begun to address the House. “When the Speaker rose to nut the motion after the Prime Minister had sat down, the DeputyLeader of the Opposition rose to a point of order and drew tfie Speaker’s attention to what had happened. The Sneaker then, in accordance with Standing Orders, asked the leave of the House for the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition to speak before the motion should be put. “I then rose in accordance with my right as a member of the House to a further point of order, with the intention of pointing out to the Sneaker that I. and indeed a number of other members of the Opposition, had been under the same misapprehen c ion as Mr Marshall. “Before T had developed mv noint of order—and T bad to sneak loudly above a babble of Government voices—there was an angry interjection from the Government front bench, accusing rhe of defying the Chair and disputing the ruling of the Speaker. “I was then ordered peremp-

topily to sit down, the Speaker stating, as I recall, that he had already ruled, though just how he had ruled on a point of order I had not established nor had an opportunity of establishing, is not very clear.

“I was certainly angry—who would not be so under the circumstance—and I called to the Prime Minister to whom I attributed the interjection, which came from his vicinity, that hp was eaeging the House. Although I assured the Sneaker that the words were applied to the Prime Minister and not to him. he immediately ‘named’ me, and the Prime Minister immediately moved to suspend me. “I have a very deep respect for the rules and procedures of Parliament, and particularly for the authority vested in the Sneaker, but I have an eaually deeo-seated belief that a Government must never be permitted to use these rules and procedures l to frustrate or circumscribe the right of free speech. “Parliament must be jealous to oreserve tha..right of free speech and an adenuate discusion against the understandable desire of a Government to obtain Parliamentary authoritv for its pro~nqals with as little fuss as possible.

“It will be a pity if the right of free speech and adequate discussion in the Chamber cannot be sustained without incidents such as that which occurred this I morning,” the statement oncludes.

when South Canterbury was to be given a replacement for the resident Magistrate, who was now assisting Magistrates in Christchurch. Timaru District The resident Magistrate’s district included not only Timaru. but Ashburton, Temuka, Geraldine, Waimate and Fairlie, said Mr Carr. Every effort had been made to bring before the Minister of Justice and the Government the needs of South Canterbury. A Magistrate could not be in two places at once. It would be better for the Timaru Magistrate to be available on occasions when the Christchurch Court was in difficulty, rather than for Timaru to be left without a resident Magistrate and dependent on the fortuitous possibility of using the services of one of the Christchurch Magistrates.

Mr Carr said that for domestic and other Teasons Mr E. A. Lee had been quite pleased to go to Christchurch, although he had been Magistrate at Timaru for 10 years or more. What Mr Carr objected to was that Mr Lee was not being replaced. He wished to oppose anything approaching the principle of centralisation for the Magistracy and the administration of justice generally. “Perhaps the move for Timaru is something in the nature of a