“A DISREPUTABLE GOVERNMENT.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5732, 30 October 1905, Page 7

“A DISREPUTABLE GOVERNMENT.”

FREE SPEECH DENIED. “RESPECTFUL TERMS” WANTED Has a member of the New Zealand Legislature the right to' criticise the British Government in any terms he chooses? Has ho liberty to speak his mind about the Government ? Tho Speaker of tbo-Legislativo Council (the Hon C. C. Rowen) says no. Tho question arose through tho Hon Air Rigg referring to the British Government as a “disreputable Government” during tho second reading debate of tho Naval Defence Rill on Friday. For that ho was ruled out of order by tho Speaker, and on the following day lie moved —“That tho action of the Speaker during tho afternoon in ruling out of order his reference to the Rritioh Government as ‘a disreputable Gov-

eminent’ was an infringement of tho privileges of a private member of the Legislative Council.” Ho said that ■when once before he attempted to discuss an Imperial question of the first importance ho was checked by the late Speaker. It was ruled then that lie could not refer to the introduction of Chinese slavery into Africa. Hon members must be aware that the language ho used on that occasion had been quite justified by events. This was the second time an injustice had been done Him, and if tho present ruling of the Speaker was to bo followed, it would prevent the proper discussion of any Imperial question which might come before the Council. Only those who wore in favour of any Imperial scheme put forward would be listened to. If free speech was to bo stilled in tbc cradle of our Jaws—the Legislature—wo might expect to see a tyranny throughout tho country that would bo intolerable. If a President or Speaker of a Legislature allowed his private feelings to sway his judgment in a judicial capacity, ho was in a piositioii to do serious injury not only to those over whom lie immediately presided, but consequentially to the people of tho colony as a wliolo. The speech that ho had intended to deliver on the previous day had been,the work of months of consideration, and that work had been destroyed by an ill-considered ruling. It had boon hold that ho was not to refer to tho British Government as a

“ disreputable Government,” but he claimed that the word “disreputable” was not offensive unless applied in an offensive manner. This lie had not done.

Mr Speaker; Tho hon gentleman first said the Government was a discredited Government, and then that it was “the most disreputable Government that has existed in England for many years.” Tho Hon Air Rigg; I contend that both words are inoffensive. I used the word “disreputable'’ as being “without reputation”—that the British Government had lost its -'reputation, and I say so now. An hou member: How has it lost its reputation ?

Tho Hon Mr Rigg: It is admitted by the leaders of the party that they have lost tho confidence of the electors. How have they lost their reputation? By violating all the best traditions of tlie British Parliament. He went on to say that the speech he had intended to deliver on tho previous day would have been connected with the subsidy we pay to the navy and tho treaty entered into between Great Britain and Japan. The result of the recent -war between Russia and Japan had been to make tho national debt of Japan £250,000,000, and the interest on that debt £15,000,000 a year. Japan would have a great navy that she would bo unable to support. Her revenue had never reached £30,000.000, and the remuneration of her working people was very small indeed. They would bo unable to bear tho coming heavy taxation, so it was probable that Japan would be financially assisted by Groat Britain. In that case the payment of a subsidy by this colony to the British navy would become indirectly a contribution to the Ilapanoso navy. Tho Hon Mr Speaker had not been very long in the chair, and, although it was long enough for members to know that he was absolutely impartial, it was not long enough for him to overcome the Influences and opinions that he hold in regard to Imperial political questions as an individual. Wo were part of tho British Empire, and subject to the British Government in many important matters, and so long as it-was the Government of tho Empire, just so long had wo a right to criticise them, as wo liad a right to criticise our own Government. He had no desire to call for a division on his motion, his desire in moving being merely to emphasise tho necessity of free speech. Tho motion was seconded by the Hon Mr Cavncross, who believed that the Hon Mr Rigg was quite within his right on the Naval Defence Bill debate. At the same time ho disagreed entirely and absolutely with the Hon Mr Rigg’s opinions. The Hon Mr Pitt, Attorney-General, while deprecating any attempt to interfere with free speech, contended that It w r as improper to refer to the Imperial Government in offensive terms. There was no doubt that the Hon Mr Rigg should bo permitted to criticise that Government to the fullest extent, but it should bo done in respectful terms.

This evidently raised some feeling in the Hon Mr Rigg, because ho rose, and stated that after the attitude taken up by tho Attorney-General he would call for a division.

Without further discussion the division was taken, and the motion lost by 21 votes to 3.