RULES OF PRIVILEGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20922, 11 July 1931, Page 13

RULES OF PRIVILEGE.

SPEECH ON TRADE COUPONS

CRITICISM IN A LETTER.

COMMITTEE' APPOINTED.

QUESTION OF ADVERTISEMENT

[by telegraph.—special reporter.] WELLINGTON. Friday.

A statement that an attempt had been made to prevent a member of the House of Representatives from giving full expression to his views on a matter of tremendous importance to the general public was made in the House late this afternoon, when Mr. F. Lye (Government —Waikato) raised a point of order in order to bring under the notice of the Speaker an attack made upon himself which he considered a breach of privilege of the House. The incident, which created a grea.'i deal of interest, arose out of the speech made by Mr. Lye in moving the Address-in-Reply when, among other things, he dealt with the question of coupon trading.

"I would like to draw attention to what I consider a breach of privilege and a very gross attack upon myself," said Mr. Lye in raising the question. He said he could not do better than quote a letter he had received by the morning's mail. Letter from Firm. This was as follows: "Mr. F. Lye, M.P. for Waikato, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. Dear Sir, — We enclose a proof copjr of a statement we are publishing for public circulation and which deals with your unwarranted and slanderous statements regarding our gift coupon system in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, June 30, during the Address-in-Reply debate. We challenge you to publicly repeat your statements outside the House, naming our company as the firm you referred , to, and so give us the opportunity to seek legal means of redress for the injury and expense you have occasioned us by the statements reforred to. We would be interested to have your reply to the challenge we make in this letter. Yours truly, Bond and Bond, Limited. H. V. Coe, manager.'/ Mr. Lye then read the first part of a full-page advertisement which, he stated, was published in this morning's New Zealand Herald. He said he contended that the advertisement was damaging and totally incorrect, and he considered that if such a thing were allowed to continue one would have to ask who would be next to be subjected to attacks of this kind. Mr. Lye's Contention. His Hansard proof, said Mr. Lye, showed quite clearly that in spite of interjection he refused to give any indication of the name of the person, firm or company that had issued the circular from which lie read extracts to the House on the night in question and that, he had made no mention of the commodity dealt in by the firm. "An attempt has been made by deliberate graft methods and coercion to prevent a member giving a true opinion of his views on legislation which may be introduced from time to time," Mr. Lye said. Ho added that two nights previously the member for Roskill (Mr. G. O. Munns) had sent for him and told him that a representative of the firm of Bond and Bond desired to interview him. Hfe had met this gentleman, against whom he had nothing, but who was carrying out the instructions of his firm, which had advised him by telegram that he (Mr. Lye) had to withdraw his charges against coupon trading advertising. Mr. Lye said he strongly resented any attempt to prevent members giving an expression of their vieiws on any approaching legislation. He hoped he would be the last one to do damage to anyone, but surely he had the right to express his opinion upon legislation. i ■ Request lor Protection.

One had one's legal redress against the firm which issued the statement and also against a newspaper which was foolish enough to print it, continued Mr. Lye. No member of the House would be safe if he could -not exercise his privileges as a representative of the people in giving true expression to his own opinion upon any legislation that may come under consideration from time to time. He asked for the protection of the House and said he considered a committee of privilege should go fully into the question and let the people of the country know that they could not do such things with impunity. The Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, said he, thought the House , would agree that one of the privileges of members was that they should have perfect security in discussion of matters of public interest. (Hear, hear.) "I listened to the speech of the honourable member for Waikato," the Prime Minister continued, "and I can say he made no particular application in his remarks to any firm or company, save that he drew attention to what was going on in regard to this question. I think members of the House will agree that it is quite reasonable for a, member to place a case such as this before the House.

Mr. J. McCombs (Labour —Lyttelton); He was entitled to name the firm if he chose. . ,• ■, I ■■ , •

"He did not mention any name; he considered he did not want to bring anyone in particular into it, nor to do injury to any firm in the Dominion," 1 said the Prime Minister. "There is no doubt that the statement made in the iletter that has been sent and the poster that has been advertised form .an attack upon a member in doing his duty as a member of this House. I think there will be no question, as far as the House is concerned, that it is the duty of the House to go into the whole question and see what should be done to safeguard the privileges we all enjoy. I am sure these privileges have never been abused since I have been in the House." Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour —Christchurch South): Hear, hear. Motion by Prime Minister. -Mr. Forbes: So tliat the matter may be dealt with by a committee of the House I shall move that the letter of July 9, addressed to the member for Waikato, and signed on behalf of the firm of Bond and Bond, Limited, Auckland, constitutes a breach of privilege of this House. "I think it only right that I should allow the House to know what I know of this particularly unfortunate business," said Mr. Munns. Ho said that in the course of a recent visit to Auckland he had occasion to' visit tho firm of Bond and Bond, when he was asked to interview the manager, who had sent the letter to Mr. Lye. From information the manager had given him ho was inclined to think the firm's system of doing business was justified. The fact that it had been able to get 20,000 signatures to a requisition in a very short space of time made him lean toward the firm's view. Two days previously the sales manager of the firm had visited Wellington to interview him and he had put him in touch witli the member for Waikato.

Mr. Munns added that the manager cjf the firm had told him at the time that his firm intended to place an advertisement in Auckland newspapers if the member for Waikato did not withdraw the statements. Ha had strongly advised the sales manager .not to take this action. He had even gone as far as to suggest that he get in touch with his firm, advising it not to adopt the' course proposed. That was all he (Mr. Munns) knew of the affair, and lie thought the House should know that he advised the firm not to take the steps which it had taken. Agreement With Motion. The Hon. W. D. .Stewart (Dunedin West), who spoke on behalf of the Reform Party, said the Opposition side of the House agreed with the Prime Minister's proposal to set up a committee. Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, said ho agreed with the motion of the Prime' Minister, but he found himself concerned as to why the newspaper was not included in tho motion.

Mr. Forbes said the motion covered the only document that had been received. One could not include the newspaper, which had not yet been received here, but it could be coupled if necessity arose later and there was actual proof available. If the question were referred to a committee the committee would decide what further action was to be taken, but until actual proof was* forthcoming this motion went sufficiently far and was the only action that could be taken.

The motion was agreed to and the following committee on privilege was set up:-—The Prime Minister, Messrs. W. A. Bodkin (Government—Central Otago), D. Jones (Reform —Mid-Canterbury), R. A. Wright (Reform —Wellington Suburbs), W. E. Barnard (Labour—Napier) and P. Fraser (Labour —Wellington Central).