PARLIAMENT— Scene In The House: Allegation Of

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 October 1948, Page 4

PARLIAMENT— Scene In The House: Allegation Of

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 6. A scene without precedent for many years occurred in the House of Represent olives this evening shortly before the adjournment, when members of the Opposition made what amounted to a demonstration against a ruling of the Chairman of Committees (Mr Cylde Carr). Tempers were obviously strained on both sides of the House, and when Mr Carr declared that his ruling was sound, and that he would uphold it, progress was reported. Before the adjournment was taken there were further references to what had occurred in committee, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland), who said he was concerned with maintaining the decorum of Ihe House, said he would inquire into the incident om behalf of Opposition members. The House had been in committee all evening discussing the Harbours Amendment Bill. Opposition speakers claimed that the provision in the Bill for the appointment of representatives of waterfront workers to harbour boards on a non-elective basis was against the principles of democracy. Shortly before the closure was applied on the motion of the DeputyPrime Minister (Mr Nash), Mr Carr had ruled that further references to democracy were out of order during discussion of the Bill, as they would merely constitute tedious repetition. After a division on the short title, Mr S. W. Smith (Opposition, Hobson) moved an amendment to delete the provision in the Bill for all nonelective members of harbour boards, whether representatives of payers oi dues, of waterfront workers, or Government representatives. Mr Algie’s Stand This amendment had been under discussion for some time when Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera) rose to support it, and in doing so made reference to what he termed a violation -of the principles of democracy in the provision for the appointment of non-elected members to harbour boards.

Mr Carr ruled that this reference was out of order.

Mr Algie questioned the ruling, and after a brisk interchange with Mr Carr, Mr Algie said: “If I am to understand that I am ordered to resume my seat because I cannot use the word democracy in a British Commonwealth Parliament, I must defy the chair.”

Mr Algie remained on his feet, although Mr Carr had also risen to his feet at his place as Chairman of Committees, and Mr Algie’s statement was greeted by sustained cheering and shouted “Hoorays” from Opposition benches. The House was in a tumult for several moments, and amid a number of heated comments, Mr A. S. Sutherland (Opposition, Hauraki) was heard to say: “If we’re not allowed to talk about democracy, we’ll go home.”

When the outcry from the Opposition benches subsided, Mr Carr, who had remained on his feet, said Mr Algie had no right to remain standing when the Chairman of Committees was on his feet. A Government voice: Bad manners.

Mr Carr said Mr Algie had understood the ruling that had been given, and had no right to deny it. Members had discussed the Bill for two hours tonight before references to democracy had been ruled out of order. Purpose of Ruling Mr Carr said the time had been occupied very largely in discussing the pros and cons of democratic principle as applied to this Bill. That he had ruled that this matter must not be discussed further on this Bill did not mean that the principle of democracy had itself been lost sight of. Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea): Temporarily obscured. Mr Carr said the only purpose of his ruling was to avoid tedious repetition. It did not mean that democracy had been lost sight of or in any way minimised or defeated. It meant only that members could no longer abuse the reference to democratic principle to prolong the debate.

“That is why I ruled as I did,” he said. “I maintain the justice of my ruling and it must be maintained.” Mr Smith: Democracy is gagged. Mr Nash then, moved that progress be reported. It was two minutes before the nor-

mal time for the adjournment of the House. Mr Smith: Stalin.

Mr Speaker (Mr R. McKeen) retinned to the chamber and Mr Carr reported that the committee had made progress and asked for leave to sit again. Mr Nash: I move that this House do now adjourn. Mi- Doidge: Let’s sing the Red Flag now.

Mr A. G. Osborne (Government, Onehunga): Let’s cut. our throats. A Government voice: They’re drunk.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland), asking leave to make a statement, said certain things had happened which members should take a little time to think over.

Mr Nash: Hear, hear. A Government voice: It was disgraceful.

Mr Holland’s Statement

Mr Holland said he had a duty to maintain the decorum of the House.

Mr Nash: Look after your own side. I am the leader of this House.

Mr Holland said he had not spoken one word of criticism and it was unnecessary for the Acting-Leader to be rude. Certain happenings in the House must be examined and he would undertake to examine them for his side of the House. He would do his best to regain what had been lost. He felt it was his duty to help maintain the good order of the House.

Mr Nash said he was happy Mr Holland had raised the matter. He had never seen from/ his side of the House anything like what had occurred tonight. Not in 20 years had he seen anything so disgraceful. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo): We are not going to be gagged. Mr Nash said there was a need for a sense of individual and collective responsibility in the House. He was sorry that the standards exhibited tonight had been reached in the House. Mr Holland said he thought a remark had been made by Mr Nordmeyer which should be withdrawn. Mt Nordmeyer admitted making a remark in the heat of the moment and he unreservedly withdrew the remark and its implication. I Mr Speaker said he was not in the House at the time of the incident but he knew members of both sides had been expressing strong opinions and some heat had been raised. He would appeal to all members to remember their responsibility to Mr Speaker and to the Chairman of Committees. It was impossible for either of them to conduct the affairs of the House properly unless they had the co-operation of all members, especially the leaders on both sides, to whom he looked especially for cooperation and guidance in the conduct of the House. He had never found that co-operation lacking and he asked members to continue to accord proper respect to Mr Speaker and equally to the Chairman of Committees. The House then rose.