QUESTION OF ETHICS

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20634, 14 August 1941, Page 2

QUESTION OF ETHICS

FUNCTION OF COMMITTEE? PASSAGE DELAYED (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Whether a Parliamentary select committee should have regard to the ethics involved in a local bill, was art interesting point raised by Mr. W. J. Poison (Nat. Stratford), in the House of Representatives yesterday when he hotly opposed the Wanganui Harbour Board Empowering Bill. This measure had been reported by the Local Bills Committee, with a recommendation that, as it did not infringe the rights of the Crown, it should be allowed to proceed without ■amendment. Mr. Poison started a critical discussion which had not ended when the adjournment time was reached, the motions before the House being talked out. It was a successful delaying action. Mr. Poison remarked that the chairman of the committee, Mr. J. W. Munro, had not told the House the circumstances surrounding the bill. “If his interpretation of the duties of the Local Bills Committee is correct’,” he continued, “I have been gravely misinformed regarding its duties. He said he was only concerned with the rights of the Crown and that the committee was not concerned about any departure from the principles of morality.” Speaker’s Explanation It was explained at great length by the Speaker (the Hon. W. E. Barnard), whose time had to be extended, that in 1013 a bargain was made to assist; the passage of the Wanganui Harbour Bill so that town ratepayers would carry twice the burden of those in 'the country, but the present bill sought to make the rating equal all round. The committee’s decision was reached by the majority, including one member, at least, who had not heard the evidence and another who went away after hearing only part of the evidence of one side. He would like to know what the committee was for.:

Mr. A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill): How did Opposition members vote? Mr. Poison: Against the bill and the whole of them , were there. Understanding' Wanted He urged that the House was the guardian of rights and should see tha. justice was done. When a bill- wasintroduced to tear up an agreement, it was the duty of the House to se<. that all members had a clear understanding of the position. The evidence showed that the lands in the country had deteriorateed, while the rating value of. the town had gone up Actually, the Harbour Board had failed to carry out the other terms ol thed agreement. One deep-sea port was to be made. but. after an expenditure of over £500,000 the depth of water was 18 inches less. Mr. Clyde Carr (Lab.,- Tirnaru): Do you blame the watersiders for that? Mr. Poison replied, amid laughter, that, on the contrary, he had found the: Wanganui watersiders quite efficient. The discussion was carried on throughout the afternoon, mainly by Opposition members. However, Mr. Richards and Mr. Clyde Carr, from the Government side, suggested that as thb valuations had increased in the town compared with the country, the argument regarding the heavier burdeff on the counties was not sustained. Mr. Poison had moved to refer the report back to the committee for further consideration, but as the whole subject .was"talked out, no decision was. reached, nc-r did the House hear Mr.L Munro’s opinion regarding the responsibility of his committee for the ethics of a bill.