A LOBBY CONVERSATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 28 September 1934, Page 6

A LOBBY CONVERSATION

FEELING IN THE HOUSE MINISTERS AND PETITION COMMITTEES (By Telegraph) (From ' ‘The ’ Mail’s’’ Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, 27th September. Some lobby conversations and a feeling among Cabinet Ministers that select committees are too liberal in their favourable recommendations on petitions, were the chief points in an incident which created a mild sensation in the House of Representatives to-day. The Public Petitions Committee, A to L, had made a recommendation on a personal uetition, when Mr F. Jones (Labour, ’ Dunedin South) stated that Ministers had conveyed to a member of the committee an opinion concerning decisions which that committee shoiuo make. A member of the committee had been approached bv the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance who complained about decisions which were being brought down bv the Committee. It was, in his opinion, highly improper that any Minister should interfere with the decisions of a committee which took evidence, not on legal grounds, because in most cases these had been exhausted, but on moral and sympathetic grounds. The statement had been made that Ministers had confidential reports, which Were not available, but they should be placed before the Committee, and if there was any criticism of its decision this should be made in the House.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr M. J. Savage), raised a point of order, asking the direction of Mr Speaker on the matter, adding “this is too serious to stay where it is. What- is the position ot Ministers in relation to petitions committees. Are they entitled to approach any member of a committee and practically take that member to task for representations brought down?’’ Mr A. J. Murdoch (Government, Marsden) pointed out that Mr Jones had not indicated what member had been approached. It could be assumed that Ministers would not do any tiling not ip accordance with the rules of the House.

Mr R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East): “Let them speak for themselves.” Mr Murdoch: “If the member for Dunedin South has an accusation to make, he should name tlie individual who had been approached. We should not leave this indefinite.”. Mr Jones: “The member for Oamaru (Mr lYlacPherson) was approached.” Mr MacPherson (Government, Oamalu) declared that Mr Jones had been guilty, of a breach of privilege, because what he had said was confidential to the committee. “I have nothing to hide either on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance,” continued the . member for Oamaru. “Certain matters in connection with petitions came off. Wo discussed that petition ana it is only right I should know what information was in possession of the Government. The information given into was certainly in the interests of the petitioner.” He expressed surprise that Mr Jones had brought up the matter in the House.

Mr W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) : “Mr Jones is not on his trial.” Mr MacPherson : “No more am I.” Mr Barnard expressed surprise that a member of the committee had so far forgotten his position as to consult Ministers.

. Mr MacPherson retorted lie had been grossly misrepresented. The Minister had no more in his mind in coming to the speaker than he would have in going to Mr Barnard.

•Ibe Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Minister ot Finance) declared the incident was being carried further than was warranted. The conversation was like an ordinary lobby conversation. A certain gentleman’s name came up, and he did not know whether the matter was before tho committee or .not. “It was purely a casual conversation which took place, m front of the fireplace in the lobby. I have never approached any member,” added Mr Coates, who expressed the opinion that committees had been Very generous, though it was not for him to mnuence them.

I he r rime Minister then came into the discussion, stating he had never disguised his belief that committees were too generous in their recommendations. If cabinet granted all the favourable recommendations in one session it would cost £2,000,000. As for tho conversation which was being discussed, it was always understood there was candid conversation in the lobbies among members. It is a privileged place, and when a man brings up here a conversation in the lobbies he does not know the rules of the House, because that is where members talk frankly.” Mr Speaker said he did not feel justified in allowing the matter to go further. It was alleged that certain representations were made for the purpose of influencing a committee. Mr borbes : “I deny that entirely.” Mr MacPherson: “I do so too.” Mr Speaker repeated he could not allow the matter to go further. It was apparently a casual conversation which was mentioned to a committee, but the member who did so was not under instructions from the Prime Minister. This closed the incident.