REFLECTIONS ON REFORM

Evening Star, Issue 18050, 18 August 1922, Page 3

REFLECTIONS ON REFORM

THAT EXPLANATORY MEMO. ME SPEAKER MISLED. breach: OF PRIVILEGE MOTION. [From Ottr Paklmmbhtaby Ebportbr.] WELLINGTON, August 17. ®r«ach of'privilege is such a rare 1 occurl«nco in Parliament that members regarded with keen-interest a charge of this character made against Mr M‘Combs (Lyttelton) in respect to reflections on tlto Boundary Commissioners which he had inserted in an explanatory memoranda accompanying his Proportional Voting and Country Quota Bill. Though there were >ccasional suggestions that the debate was A waste of time, members spent the whole afternoon on the subject, and had not exhausted their eloquence when the House adjourned for dinner. Mr Speaker, who had been requested to Yule whether Mr M‘Combs's action cqnstiSuted a prima facie breach of privilege, rave his decision. He read a statement from the Reader of Bills as to the assur-ance-given by Mr M'Combs that he had permission from the Speaker to circulate the memorandum. “I exceedingly regret,” said the Speaker, “ that the member lor Lyttelton should have so misled both the Reader of Bills and myself. _ In future I shall very carefully scrutinise every paper the hon. member for Lyttelton asks my permission to circulate.” As far as the question of privilege was concerned, that was for the House to decide, continued Sir Frederick Lang, if the Speaker held that a prima facie case had been made out. He was of the opinion that a prima facie case had been made out. Later in the afternoon the Prime Minister submitted the following motion: That, in stating to Mr Speaker and the Bills Reader that there was nothing improper in the explanatory memorandum'of his .Proportional Representation and Country Quota Bill, whereas it contained the following paragraph :—“ Under Proportional Representation there would bo no necessity to alter the boundaries of the Kaiapoi electorate in order to protect Reform interests, .because the Reform Party would secure the representation it is entitled to in the combined district of Christchurch,” the member for Lyttelton was guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House.

■‘Mr Massey said that the insertion of the paragraph in the memorandum was ■wrong and improper, but the offence was aggravated tenfold by the fact that tho Speaker and an officer of the House were misled as to the paragraph, and it was allowed, to appear. Any member in tho heat of debate or on the spur of the moment might make a mistake and say things that he ought not to, but when a man of decent instincts made a mistake he would take the first opportunity of expressing his regret. He had looked in vam for any expression of regret or any sign of repentance from Mr At‘Combs, so far as his action in this case was concerned.

Mr M'Combs: I have nothing to regret.

The Prime .Minister : I am sorry to hear the honourable member say that. It was unpleasant for him to have to find fault with any member_of the House, but it was his duty to do so in this case. As to the paragraph in the memorandum and the alteration of the Kaiapoi boundaries, the law was perfectly dear on the point. It was the privilege of any elector, or section of electors, to petition the Boundaries Commissioners if they did not agree with the way in which the boundaries were defined. In his own district the boundaries had been altered owing to increase of population in a way that was never contemplated. Years ago a section of electors were dissatisfied, and petitioned for the old boundaries to be maintained. The Commissioners, however, would not grant the petition. A Labor Member : You never suggested any petition to them. - The Prime Minister: I certainly did not. Mr Holland : That is the difference. The Prime Minister : The petition was forwarded to me, and I forwarded it on. Mr M 'Combs ; You would say it was highly to suggest a petition. The Prime Minister ; “ The honourable member has his own case to defend.” Mr Massey added that a member of Parliament was quite within his rights in calling the attention of the Commissioners to anything that he considered wrong in the boundaries, but that statement was a minor part of the offence. A far more serious offence was that the Speaker and the Header of Bills were misled into allowing a paragraph to appear. “NOTHING IMPROPER.”

Mr M‘Combs immediately rose'to reply, but ?!he Speaker reminded the House that a seconder was. required to the motion. Mr M'Combs said he, would second it, as he wanted to be sure of the opportunity of defending himself. He denied that he had intended to mislead Mr Speaker or the Bill Clerk. When any member exercised his right to introduce a Bill It was_ custom ary to attach a memorandum when it may be deemed necessary to assist members’ knowledge of it. The Standing Orders required him to submit the explanatory memorandum to Mr Speaker or tho Bill Clerk for. approval. “ I assured the latter it was all right, and in my opinion pow Jt still is. . I did not wilfully mislead tho Bill Clerk. Regarding Mr Speaker, that happened later. I went to the Go* vernment Printer and orders 1 240 copies pf tho slip, for which I was to pay 255. I submitted ono to Mr Speaker, and'asked to be allowed to have* them distributed In the House. Mr Speaker asked what it was. He appeared to bo under the impression that it was a circular from outside. I assured him there was nothing improper in it, as I knew then, and maintain now, that it was all right.” Mr M'Combs continued that, having got Mr Speaker’s assent, ho gave the memorandum to the messenger to distribute. As a matter of fact, he could have franked it, and had it posted to members much more expeditiously. It was only casually that he had mentioned to the Bill Clerk that he bad Mr Speaker’s permission to distribute it.

Mr M'Combs elaborated the operation of the droop quota principle to show why, as he contended, it was essential to make use of the Kaiapoi electorate as an example. He suggested that it was not always possible to arrest attention unless illustrations were given or contrasts made. He had previously stated dispassionately that the Reform Party was not securing the share of representation in the Christchurch district to which it was entitled; it was therefore driven to an expedient which he had described in his memoranda: “ They had either a front door method by means of Proportional Representation, or they could use the back door.” Mr M'Combs was very exhaustively discussing the boundaries of Kaiapoi and the readjustments made by the commissioners, when _ Mr M*Leod raised' the point of order that the member was travelling outside the scope of the motion. The Speaker ruled that when a member was being charged with a breach of the Standing Orders it was usual to allow him great latitude. Mr M'Combs expressed the hope that he was not offending, but he wished to put his case properly to the jury. “I hope,” he said, addressing Reform members, “that I am appealing to an impartial tribunal. That remains to be seen. The fact that one juryman would rather not listen to me, that he would gag me, does not Imply that so far as he is concerned he is impartial. My action has been perfectly honorable and aboveboard, and T don’t care, a' brass farthing for your decision.” “Would the Government have taken similar action if the reference had been to a Liberal?” asked Mr M'Combs, who declared that the Prime Minister would hore brushed it aside. “A HEINOUS OFFENCE.” te W. H. Ji curies declared that he had Matened with great attention to the mem{■T/for Lyttelton, but ho had net heard

him touch the question. “Ho does not seem to be aware—and I pity his condition—ho does not seem to bo aware of the heinousness of the offence lie has committed. I do not take the ground) that the allegation was made against the Reform Party, but that it was a deception performed in regard to the privileges of this House.” Dealing with the suggestion that Mr M'Combs could just as easily have posted his memoranda, Sir William declared that this was quite a different thing from circulating a statement under the imprimatur of Mr Speaker. If it had been circulated by post unofficially it would have -been open to the Boundary Commissioners to take action against the member for Lyttelton for libel; but Mr M'Combs had committed a gross libel on the Commissioners under the privileges of Parliament, secured through a deception. Sir William added that he had never previously heard of a member trying to use his privileges for such purposes. Mr Barlram : Simply party talk. Sir W. Herries: The hon. gentleman and his party are trying to drive it into the question of party. Mr Stalham, who commenced with the declaration that he did not approve of Mr M'Combs’s reference, nor his method of securing its circulation, said he had looked into the legal aspect of the matter, and felt that if the Prime Minister relied on what transpired between Mr M'Combs and Mr Speaker and the Bill Clerk, then no breach of privilege had been committed. Ho defined breach of privilege according to well-known authorities, one of whom held that it was not sufficient to constitute a breach of privilege if the words were offensive to members—they must be an attack on tho character or conduct of the House. Further definitions were quoted by the bon. member untily the Prime Minister interrupted "What has this to do with it?”

Mr Statham: I admit that the whole debate is a waste of time.

Mr M'Combs-: Yes, a howling farce. CHANGED GROUND.

Mr Holland remarked that Mr Massey had asked Mr'Speaker to rule whether the words complained of constituted a breach of privilege, but in his motion and Sir William Herrios’s argument the Government had changed ground. Ho thought the only explanation of _Mr Massey taking action was to fill in time. For tho past five, or six weeks the House had simply been marking time. He wanted to draw attention to the Government’s partiality. That afternoon a question full of libel had been put in the House, and the Prime Minister did not utter a word of dissent. If this matter had referred to the boundaries of Buller or a Liberal electorate not a word would /have been said 1 . The Government had shifted ground and alleged in its motion that Mr M'Combs had wilfully misled "Mr Speaker and the Bill Clerk. Mr\M‘Combs had given his assurance that there was no wilful misleading, and the House should accept his assurance. The motion only amounted to making the House the laughing stock of the country. The,Hon. W. Nosworthy justified the debate by remarking that it would ensure that a similar occurrence did not happen again. The most serious aspect of the matter was the incrimination of the Boundary Commissioners. He told Mr M'Gombs that ho was a very slippery member of the House, and this time ho had got into trouble. Mr Nosworthy, on the Speaker’s attention being drawn, withdrew this remark.

Mr Wilford said that from judicial consideration breach of privilege and abijpo of privilege were two very different things. For the latter there was no redress. No order or rule of the House had been disobeyed, and all there was in the matter was whether Mr M’Combs deliberately or wilfully misled the House. Mr M'Combs had said it was not intentional, and it was the usual custom in the House to take a member’s word.

Mr Sullivan suggested that Mr Massey should withdraw his motion, in view of Mr M'Combs’s assurance and the authorities quoted. When the House resumed at the evening sitting the debate on the question or breach of privilege was continued by the Hon. C. J. Parr, the Hon. W. Downio Stewart, and Messrs Jones, Lysnar, and Reed, who maintained that a breach of privilege had been committed. Mr Witty defended tho Representation Commissioners and the Prime Minister from a Charge of corruption in connection with the alteration of the Kaiapoi boundaries,

Mr M‘Galium sought to solve the pro blem by moving the following amendment ;

That whilst accepting the assurance of the member for Lyttelton that he believed the statements in the memorandum to be true, the House ds of opinion that he was guilty of grave indiscretion in reflecting on the Boundary Commissioners under the privilege of the forms of this House. Further, the House expresses continued confidence in the Commissioners, and its regret that a member should libel them in a manner which prevented them from obtaining redress in the Supremo Court.

The Prime Minister said he could not accept the amendment, though it was a great deal stronger against the member for Lyttelton than his own motion. The amendment, failing to find a seconder, was not further discussed.

Mr F. N. Bartram. Dr Thacker, and Messrs Isitt, Edie. Fraser, Ngata, and Savage contended that Mr M'Combs was not guilty of committing a breach. At 10.40 tho motion moved by the Prime Minister was put to the House, and on a division it was carried by 44 to 21.