LONG DISCUSSION IN HOUSE- Government Pressed On Appointment Of Communist As J.P.

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 September 1949, Page 5

LONG DISCUSSION IN HOUSEGovernment Pressed On Appointment Of Communist As J.P.

WELLINGTON, This Day (P.A.).— The appointment of a Communist as a Justice of the Peace was strongly criticised by Opposition members in.,the House of Representatives this morning when the vote on the estimates for the Department of Justice and Prisons was discussed. To express its disapproval of such action, the Opposition moved an amendment to reduce the vote. Mr C. G. . Harker (Opposition, Hawke’s Bay) opened the discussion by asking on whose recommendation was a certain Communist candidate for the General Elections appointed a Justice of the Peace? He also asked what the Minister proposed to do about the appointment? It was not a question only of personal character when a Justice of the Peace was appointed, but here was the case of an individual who held a philosophy that at all times the State’s rights were paramount. It the appointment was made in good faith and a mistake had been made, it was up to tbe Minister to say what he was going to do to protect the interests of justice. No Steps Taken Mr E. B. Corbett (Opposition, Egmont) said that nothing said by the Government had been too bad to lay at . the door of the Communists, but since the announcement that the man was to be a Communist candidate the Government had done nothing about it and no steps had been taken to see that the Commission of the Peace that the man held was cancelled. The Government would be failing in its duty if it allowed the appointment to continue. He moved an amendment that the vote be reduced by £5 because of I the Government’s failure to remove an avowed Communist from the Commission of the Peace list.

The Minister of Health, Miss Howard said 'that the member for Central Otago, Mr Bodkin, had interjected that all recommendations were submitted to the Labour Representative Committees. Mr Bodkin: I did not. Miss Howard said that never at any time she had been in the House had any recommendation for a Justice of the Peace been submitted to her by any L.R.C. and never had she been asked for any comment from the L.R.C. ' Mr Corbett: It’s done.

Miss Howard: It is not done, and there is no proof that it is done. Unless there is some proof, it is not right to get up and make sweeping statements as you are doing. “State Always Right”

Mr Bodkin said his interjection was that applications had always been referred to the member for the district for a recommendation. That had been his experience in the 21 years he had been in the House. He was' of the opinion that because it was a foundation belief of the Communists that the State was always right, the man in question was not qualified to sitin judgment on an individual if the dispute was between an individual and the State.

The Minister of Defence, Mr Jones, said it was interesting to see the attitude of the Opposition today and the defence it had put up on behalf of another person. He said that the recommendation of the man came along with two others from the railway servants. A report had been submitted and a magistrate was asked to give his opinion on the report. There were any amount of members in the House who had recommended people to be Justices of the Peace. It was only by investigation that it had been found out that, they should not have been recommended. Probably in some cases persons recommended had criminal records. “What Is To Be Done?” , ,Mr Jones said there was nothing ! against this man’s character and the i Magistrate had been satisfied that he | was fitted to.be a Justice of the Peace : and on that.recommendation he was, appointed. Mr K. Holyoake (Opposition, Pahiatua): But what are you going to do about it? Mr Jones: Does the Opposition take up the stand that no Communist should hold a position as a Justice of the Peace? Opposition members: Hear, hear: Mr Corbett: Yes. Mr Jones: That’s surprising, because sometimes we see you defending them. Mr W. H. Fortune (Opposition, Eden) said the Opposition had no idea of defending Cecil Holmes as a Communist. It was the private rights of the citizen that the Opposition defended in that case.. The Minister of Justice, Mr Mason, said the outstanding feature of the .amendment was its insincerity. Mr Corbett: You should talk. Mr Mason said that the member for Egmont preferred to move the amendment because of his desire to see the man reproved from the list of justices and to see purity in the list by having no. Communists in it. Welfare Of The State Mr Harker said the point at issue was the welfare of the State and the maintenance of confidence by individuals in fair administration of British justice. Mr Corbett said it was not a question involving the probity of man. The man in question was following a philosophy diametrically opposed to British principles and ideas. The appointment was approved by the L.R.C. in Petone. Mr M. Moohan (Government Petohe): It was - not. Mr Corbett said, that any Justice of the Peace became an honorary magistrate and was empowered to sit on the bench and administer jus-, tice in certain circumstances. He knew some of the Government members on the front benches wanted to shake off their Red. friends, but they were being shown up. One would have thought that after what Government Ministers and members had said about the Communists they would not. consider the appointment to be a fit and proper one. Mr Mason said there was no suggestion of the man being a Communist when he was appointed. Why did the member for Egmont not first ask what the Government was going to do before moving his amendment? “What will happen will be that proper inquiries will be made now that the matter has been raised. • I lam not going to' be told that the Government is catering for Comj munists. Anybody who has dealings 1 with the Communists knows what they are and that they . cannot be trusted as far as loyalty to the country ..is concerned.” x . ( , Why Delay Action? ’ . Mr Corbett: Why delay action then? ' ' '

Mr Mason went on to' say : that every Justice of the Peace took the oath of allegiance and also a judicial oath. Where those tests -were .applied, they ensured that the persons concerned were not subversive. He said' that the member for Egmont’s amendment was “just a stunt.” \

Mr Holyoake said that both Ministers had. evaded the issue. The question was not what had happened, but what was going to be done. The Minister had-had four days to inquire into the question arid to make. up . his mind what he’was going to do. The Minister - could have been the first to have spoken in, the discussion and tb allay the fears' of the House, but had chosen to reinain silent. Mr Holyoake said that it was not known whether the man was a Communist in 1946, when he was appointed, but that fact had become crystal clear when he' was* announced as a ' Communist candidate. If the Minister would say that he and the Government would withdraw his commission, the Opposition would withdraw its amendment. The Opposition had made up its mind bn the matter, but the Minister and the Government apparently had not? The Minister of Education, Mr McCombs, said there were Opposition members who belonged to a Government which forbade civil servants from making any public expression of opinion. It was. the Leader of the Opposition who said recently that he would not take part in. a broadcast unless the Communists and others were given the same opportunity. The Opposition, was on very dangerous ground if they insisted that a man should _ be. removed from the list of Justices because of the thoughts he held.

Nothing Inconsistent ■ Mr T. C. Webb (Opposition, Rod-

ney) said there was nothing inconsistent between the Opposition’s attitude to the Holmes case and it stands on. this issue. In the .Holmes case they argued that even Communists had some rights and that their __ satchels should not be taken, their correspondence read and published. l The Communists had the same’rights to the protection of the law as other people, but that was not to say they should be appointed to judicial positions.

Mr R. Ritchie Macdonald (Government, Ponsonby) said he was probably the only member of the House who knew Mr Quinn personally.. He did not subscribe do Mr Quinn’s Communist philosophy and had fought Mr Quinn on many platforms on the issue of Communism. However, he believed Mr Quinn to be sincere and his appointment « had been made only after the usual procedure had been followed. If there were any blame, it lay not with the Minister who sanctioned it but with the police, who made the usual inquiries, and with the magistrate who approved the recommendation in Mr Quinn’s case. There was* no evidence of Mr Quinn being subversive or of his having committed any ..crime against the State. "* Mr Fraser Intervenes

Mr M. H. Oram (Opposition, Manawatu): The point is, what are you going to do now? The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, intervening in the debate at this stage, said he had not had time to make inquiries, but it was clear the appointment was made in 1946 shortly after the war, in which the Communists had fought and died with us, and at a time when “these chaps were working with us, even their major countries to some extent.” The situation had, however, changed since then to a great degree and it was beyond doubt that the leading Communists were more Soviet citizens than citizens of New Zealand. Mr Fraser said the question was not a person’s political freedom but of allegiance to this country. The individual concerned was appointed properly in the ordinary way and no question of blame could arise. But the case certainly required inquiries and inquiries would be made. 15 “It is a question whether the person . holds views which cannot be reconciled with unswerving singleminded loyalty to this country, its Constitution and the King,” he . c r-d “If they don’t hold views giving that loyalty beyond any dispute, tn-> should not be there and should have the decency to resign themselves. If they don’t, action should be taken against them.” . / Investigation Promised Mr Holyoake: Should be, or would be? Mr Fraser said the matter would have to be investigated by the At-torney-General, but the latter’s views coincided with his own. “I am sure no other attitude could be taken up,” said Mr Fraser. “The international situation has so developed that I cannot see how any one professing Communist opinions or. adhering to the Communist Party can give loyalty to this country. The Minister will investigate the matter from that viewpoint.” Mr R. Gerard (Opposition, Ashburton), said he accepted the Prime Minister’s statement. Mr Fraser had said some of the things the Opposition had been saying and given the answer they sought. If only the AttorneyGeneral had given the same reply earlier, the time of the House could have been saved. Mr Corbett then withdrew his amendment, and the House proceeded to discuss other aspects of the appointment of Justices of the Peace. Nomination System “ . Mr Holyoake said there was an increasing tendency for nominations for appointment to be made, not only by local branches of the Labour party but by the national secretary. That was a regrettable tendency, and he hoped the National Party would never do likewise.. v ' Mr Fraser said if 1 the national secretary merely passed on the recommendations of local party branches, he did not think objection could be taken. It might be different if the national secretary strongly urged a particular appointment, but that was not the case. • The usual courtesy was that any organisation, or individual nominating a person as a Justice of the Peace first advised the local member of Parliament and that courtesy should be observed in all Ca*S6S*' ' 1 Mr Fraser said, he had himself recommended the appointment of persons he knew to be his political. Opponents. The only consideration was the fitness of the person for appointment.- - 1 • . ' * . The luncheon adjournment' was ’ taken at 1 p.m. ■ .