AGAIN BEFORE THE HOUSE.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 39, 15 August 1905, Page 6

their affidavits; but thu House had instructed the Auditor-General to report on tho matter, and it should not be dealt with until the Auditor-General's report had been presented. Mr. Herries asked if the Premier was in order in going into the merits of tho question. The Speaker said the Premier had a right .to give reasons for his point of order.

The Premier went on to urge that if the matter was before a Parliamentary Committee the House would refuse to entertain such a petition, and that no one had a right to bring befoie the House during the course of the enquiry evidence bearing on Ihe enquiry. If that was puonsneil under the protection of privilege the other paity would be prejudiced until the enquiry had been concluded.

Mr. Taylor rose to a, point of order. Was the Premier justified in arguing on •these lines, seeing that the petition had not been read?

Mr. Speaker said he was giving the Premier the same 'latitude as he would give every other member on the subject. The Premier said he knew sufficient from 'the- names being Tead out. They were the public officers who had madfc the affidavits, and Mr. Fisher had said ho would lay those affidavits on tho table of the House if he' was allowed. •He urgad therefore that he had a p-er-feet right io intercept tho petition at this stage. It was hi 6 duty as Leader of the House to draw the attrition of Mr. Speaker and of the 'House .to what was being attempted. If a similar attempt -was mado- in a case- before the Supreme Court it would' be treated as contempt.

Mr. Fisher: Are we discussing affidavits or •tho petition? Mr. Speaker said he had only ithe petition before him.

The- Premier said it was understood thai, tha paper in question was a duplicate of the affidavits now before the Auditor-General.

Mr. Taylor sair 1 'he affidavits were not embodied in the petition, and he suggested that Mr. Speaker should at once inspect the petition.

Mr. Speaker aaid the Premier would not be justified in saying that the petitiQn embodied the affidavits, but he did not understand him to say that. After a leferenceto "fair play," the Premier raid he wanted the petition to be perused by the Speaker, to see if it were in contravention of'the Standing Orders. He repeated his previous arguments, and urged that as the matter was now sub judice the same ruling would apply as. if the matter was now before a Select Committee of the House. There would be no objection to the i^etition going before tlie Auditor-General. That would be fair to both parties, but- if it were now received, would the House refuse to give the same privilege to Captain Seddon and the Treasury Officials and the Acting Under-Sec-retary for Defence to-morrow? (A member: No objection.) The Premier said that might be so, but the firat petition would have had 24 hours' start, and that would be unfair. It meant that the evidence should go before the House before it went to the AuditorGeneral. ' „ Mr. Fisher : There is nothing in the nature of evidence in the petition.

Mr. Taylor : He is talking to Hansard

The Premier said he presumed Mr. Fisher would not wish to shield himself behind the a' 'avits. He relied o,n.Mr. Fisher's sense of fair play.

Mr. Taylor : Last week he had none,

The PremieT retorted that Mr. Taylor had no sense of fair play. H« again challenged the petition,' as being opposed to the.' Standing Orders, and said ho believed there were rulings on the subject in favour of hi 3 contention.

The Leader of ihe Opposition said he did not think the Premiar had mado out a very strong case. He' quoted from May (the authority on Parliamentary procedure) in support of his contention that the petition ought to bo received.

Mr. Fisher also combated the Premier's objection, and urged, on the other hand, that the petition of the Treasury officials referred to a previous debate, which was against the Standing Orders. Before discussing the merits of the petition they should know what it contained. He was quite prepared to place it in the hands of the Speaker.

Mr. Taylor said he did not challenge the Treasury officials' petitions, because they felt there should be the maximum of enquiry and not the minimum which the Premier was insisting on. This petition did not refer to any debate that had taken place in the House, and simply said that these men desired a public enquiry at which evidence should be taken on oath in the full light of day. They desired an impartial enquiry. The fact that by >these words 'Mr. Taylor had practically put the petition before- the House at last dawned on membew, and amid laughter the Premier rose and heatedly protested, urging that the Speaker should see the petition at once.

Mr. Taylor said he would not make any further reference to the pstition. The Premier * was desperately anxious that no petition on those lines should bo presented, and his reinarlra seemed to disclose a desire to avoid investigation. The Houso had repeatedly aaked .that these men should come out into tho open, and yet when they endeavoured to do so, the Premier tried to stop .them. Tho Premier's conduct seemed to evince ■a' desire to avoid full investigation. As ■to tho sub judioe argument, this was only a Departmental enquiry, and not a judicial tribunal. -■ If .tho Hpuee could not discuss tho matter while- it was before tho Auditoi-General, all, that ofnccT would havo to do would be to hold over hie report indefinitely, and the qus-stion would be removed from tho consideration of tho highest tribunal in itho land.

After further discussion, the Speaker ruled .that the petition was in order, and on the motion of Mr. Fisher, it was. read to the House.