RULING CHALLENGED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 307, 26 November 1937, Page 2

RULING CHALLENGED

PREMIER AND CHAIRMAN. DAIRY INDUSTRY DEBATE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Nov. 25. Referring in the House of Representatives to the vote of £61,086 for the Dairy Industry Account this evening, the member for Motueka, Mr K. J. 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 had been expended. Mr H. S. S. Kyle asked if the act-ing-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. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Nash): The two officers concerned get on very well together, I can assure you. Hon. A. Hamilton (Leader of the Opposition) asked that tho Minister should make the guaranteed price committee’s report public. ; Mr Nash: It is ail in the Marketing Department’s -report, which was published some days ago. Mr Hamilton: Is the Minister prepared to disclose at present how lie will finalise the unpaid balance in this account? Mr Nash: Not just now, but the facts will be given. Mr W. A. Bodkin referred to the total salaries of the staffs both in London and New Zealand, which totalled £29,970 out of the total vote of £61,086. The amount ,of salaries, he thought, was not out of proportion to the work the staffs were doing. They were doing very valuable work for the Dominion and were certainly not overpaid in view of their valuable work. MR .POLSON’S CONTENTION. Mr W. J. Poison criticised the expenses of the Guaranteed Price Committee, the amount totalling £2OO. He said lie was . doubtful wuetliei- tbe country had got £2OO worth of value for the committee’s report. There was difficulty in getting any real information about what had happened at the committee’s meetings. He understood the reports were sent to the Minister, who had deliberately concealed the report. The dairy industry had been asking for that information. Mr Savage rose to a point of order, asking if tne member was entitled to say tne Minister was deliberately concealing a report. The Chairman of Committees (Mr E. J. Howard) stressed the fact that the Estimates covered a very wide area and that lie had always ruled that, unless a member objected to a term which was not unparliamentary, lie would not interrupt the business of the Committee by asking for a withdrawal. Mr Savage: I object to the term used. I want to see that Ministers are not insulted. I wish to know whether a 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 Savage: I move that the chairman reports progress and asks 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. APPEAL TO SPEAKER.

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 withheld they would he finding themselves getting into difficulties. It was the duty or 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, but 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,” said the Premier. Mr Coates: What do you mean, “they will protect themselves”? Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said members on his side of the House were quite in accord with the Prime 'Minister that the dignity of the House should be upheld, but lie held that there was nothing urfparliamentary about the words used. The Minister 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' withdraw)). There was no desire by 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 (Hon. D. G. Sullivan) supported Mr ’ayage and stated that tho words “deliberately concealed” meant that the Minister had information which he was in honour bound to give. Rt. Hon. J. .G. 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 : They were “deliberately concealed.” > Mr Coates, after several more interjections of this nature, stated that Mr Howard was as far a chairman as it was possible to get. Mr J. A. Lee explained that lie had not been in the House at the time, but lie thought it was the chairman's point of view that if the words .used meant that the Minister was concealing something he should make public then they should be 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 lie 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 sa’"d. no matter what it was.” He contended that the Prime. Minister was in order in protesting against the use of an offensive term. Mr. Bodkin said it was impossible for the Speaker to get the exact words used, also the atmosphere of the House at the time the incident occurred. The Minister of Labour (Hon. H. 1 • Armstrong) said he had. 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 had prompted the Minister to conceal something. Others might take an

entirely different view. CHAIRMAN’S 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 was in charge of the House and Avas 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 Committee was judge as to the conduct of the House. Not being present, he had missed the atmosphere of the matter. Mr Howard had 7 probably felt that the words in question verged on unparliamentary usage, but hq 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 a great disadvantage, that I should not interfere with the decision of the Chairman of Committee. I think I would be creating an unsafe precedent if I were to do so,” siaid the Speaker. He added that 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 left to the discretion of the chairman. He asked all members to be careful in their use of words. The vote Avas passed.