MR HARRIS’S CHARGES

Evening Star, Issue 19351, 10 September 1926, Page 6

MR HARRIS’S CHARGES

OPPOSITION LEADER'S CHALLENGE

INCIDENT IN OMNIBUS DEBATE [From Our Paeliame start Reporter] WELLINGTON, September 10. During the third reading of the Motor Omnibus Trafiic Bill in the House to-day, Mr Harris (Waitemata) put on record his attempts to amend it. Ho considered tho Bill one of the greatest mistakes tho Government had made. I Mr Holland (Lender of the Opposition) declared that the most serious feature was the charge made by Mr Harris against the' Government, challenging its political and commercial morality- He had then made a second statement that he was not making a charge of dishonesty against the Government, but it was hard to reconcile this with h:;- first charge. The Government could not simply toll him in reply “Wo don’t want yon.” The position could not remain thus with credit to either the member or the Government, because if Mr Harris remained in that party tho Government was pleading guilty to his charges. If any Labor member made such a charge against, its leader, either he would have to prove it, or if he failed ho would have to got out of the party. Mr Harris had made a most serious charge, but the House had not had the evidence—simply a direct statement. He might have been met by the Government to the extent of postponing the operation of the regulations until after the municipal elections. Mr Harris had a sense of grievance against _ the Government, and the Prime Minister might have been wise had he included Mr Harris in his Ministry.

Mr Forbes remarked that ho did not take Mr Harris’s remarks as a charge against the integrity of the Government. He had said that the Government disregarded the wishes of the Takapuna people regarding a concession given to a private company owing to the fact that a private company was able to exercise a fair amount of political null in regard to the Reform Party. The postponement of the regulations until an election in Takapuna would have given the electors an opportunity of expressing their minion. “The Reform Party and the Government are under particular observation because of the abundance of money supplied for their election campaign, and we have to watch very closely in this Parliament to see whether a quid pro quo for those funds is going to be shown.”

Mr Fraser, a member of the Omnibus Select Committee, declared that a charge of corruption was preposterous. The committee, representing all parties, decided against giving special consideration to that borough. Mr Forsyth remarked that when the House _ opened ho thought the Motor Bus Bill was to be considered, but it seemed to bo a washing of dirty linen measure.

The Speaker said that ho had not stopped Mr Harris when speaking because ho did not regard his charges ns serious enough. If members thought differently they should have raised the point of order at the time. To revive the matter now was to some extent a reflection upon his (Mr Stathniu’r) conduct of the business of the House. COMPLETE REFUTATION [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September 10. Mr Lysnar said the Bill did not go far enough. Next session the Government should stop motor competition with the railways. Sir Joseph Ward said the Bill did an injustice in not allowing compensation for goodwill. The omnibus proprietors came into business to meet the public requirements, and were entitled to goodwill. He did not seriously regard the quarrel between Mr Harris and the Government. They would settle their differences and afterwards love one another better than ever. The Hon. F. J. Rolleston, replying, sa“® the Government bad referred the whole question of tramway v. Iras to a committee, which had taken evidence and made a thorough investigation, and the Bill was the result of their recommendations. That disposed of any suggestion that there had been anything improper in connection with the Takapuna Tramway Company. The Prime Minister said, in reply tn Mr Lysnar, that the Government had no intention of introducing legislation to prevent motor competition with the railways. Ho thanked Mr Fraser tor his generous vindication of the Government in connection with the Bill. As his statement was based on inside knowledge of the position, gained as a member of the committee, his speech was a complete answer to the Loader of the Opposition. Mr Holland said he accepted the assurance of Mr Fraser; but what then became of the member for Waitcmntn ?

Mr Coates said that was a matter between Mr Harris and the Government. Continuing, lie said that Mr Forbes had not been generous. 11c had suggested that the Government was influenced by political “ pull,” and the straightforward tiling for him to do was to get up and make direct charges. Ho did not object to Mr Harris making a big fight against the Bill, but lie, did not want support from anyone who believed them guilty of improper conduct.

Mr Forbes 'by way of personal explanation said that what lie meant was that the Reform Party had at last election indulged in unparailed expenditure, and it was freely said it had received large contributions to the party funds from" private individuals, and therefore its legislation required careful scrutiny. Ho thought there was some relation between that point and tho charges made by Mr Harris. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Tho House then went into Committee of Supply to receive the Supplementary Estimates.