WRANGLE OVER TERMS

Evening Star, Issue 22816, 26 November 1937, Page 9

WRANGLE OVER TERMS

alleged insulting words SPEAKER'S PROTECTION INVOKED SCENE IN THE HOUSE [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, November 25. Referring when the House was in committee on the departmental votes to £61,086 for the dairy industry account, Mr Holyoake asked why there was such a large discrepancy between the present account and the vote of £44,550 last year, of which only £28,968 was expended. Mr Kyle asked if the acting director under the dairy industry account was the superior officer of the head of the Internal Marketing Department. These two officers must meet frequently, and one should have a certain degree of authority. , , T The Minister of Finance (Mr Nash): The two officers concerned get on very well together, I can assure you. Mr Hamilton asked that the Minister should make the Guaranteed Price Committee’s report public. . 'Mr Nash: It is all in the Marketing Department’s report which was published! some days ago. , . Mr Hamilton: Is the Minister prepared to disclose at present how he will finalise the unpaid balance in this account? . , , ~ , , Mr Nash: Not just now, but the facts will be given. Mr Bodkin referred to the total salaries of the staffs both in London and New Zealand, which totalled £29,970 out of a total vote of £61,086. The amount of salaries, he thought, was not out of proportion to the work these staffs were doing. They were doing very valuable work for the Dominion, and were certainly not overpaid in view of their valuable work. Mr Poison criticised the expenses of the Guaranteed Price Committee, the amount totalling £2OO. Mr Poison said he was doubtful whether the country got £2OO worth of value for_ the committee’s report. There was difficulty in gatting any real information about what happened at the committee’s meeting. He understood l the reports were sent to the Minister, who deliberately concealed the report. The dairy industry had been asking for that information. Mr Savage rose to a point of order, asking if the member were entitled to say the Minister was deliberately concealing a report. The Chairman of Committees (Mr Howard) stressed the fact that the Estimates covered a very wide area, and that he had always ruled that unless a member objected to a term which was not unparliamentary he would not interrupt the business of the committee by asking for withdrawal. Mr Savage; I object to_ the term used. I want to see that Ministers are not insulted. I wish to know whether the member can get away with the term he used. _ . Mr Howard again explained his ruling, and stated that if the Minister objected to the statement then he would ■ask Mr Poison to withdraw, but Mr Nash had not objected. Mr Sayage: I move that the chairman report progress and ask the Speaker for a ruling- This is not good enough. .. The motion to report progress was opposed by the Opposition, who forced it to a division, the motion being carried by 39 to 17. When the House had resumed, and after Mr Howard had reported' the incident to the Speaker, the Prime Minister said it seemed to him that if the chairman’s ruling were upheld they would be finding themselves getting into difficulties. It was the duty of the chairman or the Speaker to see that offensive terms were not used. .Two such terms had been used that night. One Minister had been called a loafer, hut that had been allowed to pass, and the other expression was that the Minister had deliberately concealed a report. “ What I am concerned' about more than anything else is that unless the House will protect individual members maybe the time will come when they will make efforts to protect themselves.” Mr Coates: What do you mean—they will protect themselves? Mr Forbes said the members on his side of the House were quite in accord with the Prime Minister that the dignity of the House should be upheld, hut he held that there was nothing unparliamentary about the words used. The Ministers had not objected to them. The Chairman of Committee was a better judge than any member of the terms used, and whether they should be withdrawn. There was no desire by the members of his side of the House to lower its dignity, and he thought Ministers were quite able to look after .themselves. The Minister of Railways (Mr Sullivan) supported Mr Savage, and stated that the words “ deliberately concealed ” meant that the Minister had information which he was in honour bound to give. Mr Coates said there were two points to consider. The Chairman of Committees was the controller of the committee. Mr Savage: As far as relevancy is concerned. Mr Coates; The words “deliberately held back ” are not on the black list. . Mr Nash: You were not in the House. “ Deliberately concealed ” were the words used. Mr Coates: I was in the House, and I was listening. The words were “ deliberately held back.” Mr Nash: No, they were “ deliberately concealed.” Mr Coates: My word is as good as yours. Mr Sullivan :Tfaey were “ deliberately concealed.” Mr Coates, after several more interjections of this nature, stated that Mr Howard was as fair a chairman as it was possible to get. Mr Lee explained that he had not been in the House at the time, but he thought this was the chairman’s point of view. If the words used meant that the Minister was concealing something ho should make public, then they should he withdrawn, but it was sometimes inadvisable for a Minister to make public certain reports, and if the words had been used in that sense he did not think the Minister was being accused of something he should not do. Mr Nash said he had heard the words “deliberately concealed” used._ The chairman had asked him if he objected. “ I said * No,’ ” added Mr Nash, “ but the term was offensive. I would not, however, object to anything the member for Stratford said, no matter what it was.” He contended that the Prime Minister was in ord'"’’ In protesting against the_ use of an offensive term. Mr Bodkin said it was imposiblo for the Speaker to get the exact words used or the atmosphere of the House at the time the incident occurred. The Minister si Labour* Mr Arm-

strong, said he listened very intently to what was said, and had no doubt that what was in the mind of the member was that some distinct motive prompted the Minister to conceal something. Others might take an entirely different view. Mr Howard, after outlining the circumstances of the controversy, said the question was not whether the words used were unparliamentary, but whether the Chairman of Committee wasin charge of the House and allowed to give rulings. The Speaker said he was placed in a position of considerable difficulty. Normally, when the House was in committee, the Chairman of the Committee was the judge as to the conduct of the House. Not being present, lie had missed the atmosphere of the matter. Mr Howard had probably felt that the words in question verged on unparliamentary usage, but he had referred them to the Minister concerned, who had decided to let them pass. “ I think in the circumstances, not being present, and being placed at great disadvantage, that 1 should not interfere with the decision of the Chairman of the Committee. “ I think I would be creating an unsafe precedent if I were to do so,” he added. Many words used in debate in the House were of questionable taste, and their duty was to prevent words that were clearly unparliamentary. The matter must be loft to the discretion of the chairman. He asked all members to be careful in their use of words. The vote was passed.