BREACH OF PRIVILEGE ALLEGED BY MEMBERS

Manawatu Times, Volume LII, Issue 6455, 12 November 1927, Page 6

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE ALLEGED BY MEMBERS

Strong Comment by Methodist Minister COMMITTEE SET UP TO MAKE INQUIRIES WELLINGTON, Thursday. Tlic House of Representatives last night agreed that a breach of privileges had been committed by the publication of the following statement attributed to th e Kev. E. D. Patchett alleged to have been made in the Methodist District Synod:—“ He spoke of the disappointment of all In the rejection by Parliament of the Religious Exercises In State Schools Bill. He had contempt for those who put party politics and electioneering expediency before the welfare of the children and the country; while the action of those who pretended to commend the Nelson system only jo kill the Bill was hypocritical and despicable.”

M r Atmore said the item, in question appeared to him to constitute a 1 breach of privilege. He did not know of any committee that had gone so thoroughly into two sides of the question as had the Education Committee. Th e statement complained of was uncalled for and was calculated to lower the prestige of Parliament. A Prima Facie Case. Mr. Speaker explained, that it was not the duty of Mr. Speaker to decide whether a breach of privilege had been committed—-that was for the House to decide—but to state whether a prima facie case had been made out.' “I have no hesitation," added Mr Speaker, ‘‘in saying that a prima facie case has been made but and Mr Atmore would be in order in submitting a motion to the House that a breach of privilege has been committed. Mr . J. Jordan (Manukau) seconder the motion in order to give Mr. Patchett an opportunity of declaring that he had not made the statement. H e had no doubt that neither a Methodist minister no r any other minister, or clergyman, would not use such language. A report had evidently been furnished to the Press. He felt sure that clergymen and ministers were more tolerant than the report gave them credit for. A Good Advertisement. Th e lion. H, A. Wright, Minister of Education, said there was. no doubt that th e language used was uncalled for and out of place if it was used. Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central): A little strong The Minister: ‘‘lt was too strong." Before members could record a vote they must be sure that the words were used.

The speaker. pointed out that tho words had been published, and the editor and publisher would be included in any motion. The Minister considered that if the motion were passed it would make the clergyman a martyr* “and if ho is brought to the Bar of this House yon will not be abl e to find a church in New Zealand big- enough for him.'' he added. Wo all know that persons who must b 0 watched most carefully are parsons and lawyers. (Laughter) I have had something to do with newspapers and I know, and every editor will say the same thing. Mr V. H. Potter (Roskill) said the honour and Integrity of the House must bo maintained. Every member must repudiate the allegations of dishonesty of purpose against every member who voted against the Bill.

Prime Minister's Views. Tho Prim 0 Minister (Right Hon. J. G. Coates) said he felt somewhat surprised at th e concern displayed by some members as to what the newspapers were saying about them. *T am beginning to wonder if I am thinskinned,” ho said. I wonder if we are not making too much of tho case. Perhaps if the Minister did fill his church, and Mr Potter went along, it would be worth ■while.” Mr, D. G. Sullivan (Avon): Would you go? The Prime Minister: “I think I would on the first Sunday after tho case has been disposed of.” Mr Coates added that-M r Speaker having ruled there- was a prima facie case it was for tile house to allow the case to go to a committee for inquiry, and then report back to tho House. That would b e the fairest thing to all concerned—the clergyman, the editor, and the publisher. In his opinion members of th 0 House, in spite of the criticisms of them, would win out every time. Mr R. P. Hudson (Motueka) hoped Mr Patchett would bo abl e to inform the inquiry that lie had been misrepresented. “I giv e way to nothing in tho honesty of my purpos e in wanting to give the children of this country the opportunity of being brought up with a knowledge of their Maker.” added (he member. Mr M. J. Savage (Auckland West) was inclined to agree with the Minister of Education. If members wor e going to feel insulted by everything said about them in tho newspapers they would be insulted pretty

often. He believed the parson would welcome any action by the House. The motion that a breach of privilege had been committed by the publication of the words complained of was carried. On the motion of the Prime Minister the House decided to appoint five members to inquire into the circumstances of the publication of the words and to report to the House within, five days. Th e personnel is Sir John Luke, Messrs. Fraser, Scddon, J. Mason, and E. P. Lee.