"UNFIT FOR OFFICE"

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9096, 15 July 1915, Page 9

"UNFIT FOR OFFICE"

PARLIAMENT PROTESTS AGAINST A RECENT “REFORM” APPOINTMENT. EX-MEMBER OF HOUSE ON LAND BOARD. In the House of Representatives yesterday, Mr 11. McCallum (Wairau) ■ asked tho Prime Minister if it was ;,ruo that he, as Minister for Lands, had caused to he appointed to one of ihe Land Boards of tho Dominion an ex-member of Parliament who had been recently unseated for corrupt practices on an election petition tried before two judges of the Supremo Sourt; and, if so, had his attention been called to (a) section 224 of the Legislature Act, 1908, which expressly provided that a person convicted of ,mv corrupt or illegal practice should , ho incapable of holding any public or judicial office, and if ho hold any such office the office should bo vacated, and (b) tho Minister’s own amendment ot the Land Act, 1908, passed m 1918, whereby bo had caused it to be enacted that if any member' was guilty or ’•negligent or improper conduct (in addition to “fraudulent conduct ) which, in the opinion of the Govornment, rendered him unfit for the office, his scat on the board should become Vacant (see Land Laws Amendment ' Act. 1913, No 24, section o)r “Tho honourable gentleman apparently misunderstands tho position, replied the Prime Minister. W Bubclauso (1) of section 224 provides that a person who commits any corrupt or illegal prr-otice shall be subject to such of tho incapacities (it any) specified in the section . . • ® s the Election Court in its report states in its opinion ho should be subject to; (2) clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 224 of the Legislature Act, 1908, provides that a person convicted upon indictment shall bo incapable of holding any public office; (3) the gentleman referred to by tho honourable member for Wairau was not convicted on indictment, nor did the Election Court in its report express the opinion that ho should be incapable ot holding any public office; (4) section 6 of tho Land Act, 1913, has no bearinupon the caso referred to by the honourable gentleman. That section deals not with the making of appointI ments to Land Boards, but sets out frho circumstances under which the seat of a member of a Land Board shall become vacated. The gentleman who bas been appointed to the Auckland Land Board will prove a valuable addition to that institution, inasmuch as ho has probably a betterknowledfe of tho Crown lands in the North of Auckland than any other person m tho Dominion. I may add that this large and important distinct had not been represented qtv the Land Beard for some years past.” NO PERSECUTION. Mr McCallum quoted the clauses of the Electoral Act bearing upon the point, and said it clearly had been intended that a person who had been found guilty of corrupt practice should bo debarred from holding public office. Iho Government certainly had not been entitled to place upon a Land Board aa ©s-member of"' Parliament at the time when ho was undergoing a period of disqualification. The spirit of the law. if not tho letter, had required that no appointment of the kind nhould bo made, particularly at a time when a non-party rule was being obnerved in Parliament. > Mr Massey: “Do you want to persecute tho man?” Mr McCallum: “I am persecuting nobody. Wo are all tho authors of our own troubles. Probably tho Prime Minister feels sympathy with this man, ■ but in the position ho holds ho should not show it. Ho should not have helped a party protege in this way.” Mx- G. Forbes (Hurunui) said that the members of Land Boards should be men (n whom the country could have confiThe legal aspect of tho matter raised by Mr McCallum did not concern members generally as much as the moral one. Tho important point was that a man had been appointed to the Auckland Land Board immediately after his disqualification by an Election Court for tho offence of bribery in an election contest. “We do not want to persecute anybody,” said Mr Forbes, “but Wo do say that the Government should not elevate to public position a man who has been found guilty of corrupt practice by the judges. It is very difficult indeed for the Opposition to observe a non-party rule if it is asked to condone an appointment of this tort. Tho probity of a member of a public body should be the first consideration-” • A member: “Do you doubt his probity?” Mr Forbes: “ The court has held that he has been guilty of corrupt practice in an election contest. There are members of your party who feel strongly on tho point. Your leaders should not make an appointment that is a public • scandal.” A member: “What about Satan reproving sin?” . ■ , Mr Forbes: “This appointment .stands, by itself. I asked the Prime Minister when his Land Bill was before the House to provide some form of election for Land Boards. He refused to 4o so, and retained the power of appointment. I am sure his own party cannot approve of the appointment to a board of a man who was stated by a court to bo unfit to sit in this owing to .his method of conducting an “lection campaign.” TORY MORALITY. Mr J. Payne (Grey Lynn) said the incident was an. illustration of the molality of the Tory party. Tho gentleman who had been given this appointment hod done very well out of the Government already, his company having been granted water powers which had been reserved for the people of this country. Ho hoped that in the interests of common morality tho Prime Minister would revoke the appointment. Mr J. G. Coates (Kaipara) thought the question was an unwise one to ask. Opposition members; “No doubt y on Mr Contes: There was no more popular appointment to the Auckland Land Board. (Cries of “Ob.”) Mr Payne: “So much for Auckland morality.” Mr. Coates: It was an unfair advantage to take of tho gentleman ■ who had lost his election. The court had decided, ami what was the use of continually bringing up the matter. Opposition members: “Put him off die Land Board.”

Mr Coates simply wanted it to be understood that Air Reed’s appointment was a particularly popular one. POINT OF QUESTION IGNORED. Mr G, W. Russell (Avon) remarked that the whole point of Mr MoCallum’s question had been ignored in what had been said. The qualifications of Air Reed for appointment to a Land Board were not in dispute. Mr AlcCallum had directed attention to the legal position, which made it unlawful for Mr Reed to hold any public office. One thing certain was that the reply prepared .to tho question had not come from the Legal Department. Mr Reed had been convicted of being concerned in bribery and corruption in connection with the Bay of Islands election and according to tho law he was incapable of holding any public or judicial office. Mr J. T. M. Hornsby. (Wairaxapa) waa surprised at the suggestion of the Prime Minister that Mr Reed was being persecuted. The moral of the Government’s action was that tho way to get on a Land Board was to commit a corrupt practice. The eyes of the House could not be shut to the fad that Mr Reed had been disqualified for twelve months from holding any public position. . Mr Massey: “That is not so. (A laugh from Mr Nosworthy.) Mr Hornsby: “Tho hon. member may laugh. it is an evidence of his want of moral sense.” “HAILED WITH DELIGHT.” The Attorney-General (Hon. A. L. Herdman) said that he did not know whether Air Reed voted at the last election or not, but there was a good deal of hypocrisy, cant and humbug talked about the gentleman. He waa confident that tho appointment would bo bailed with delight—. (Loud Opposition laughter.) . Ho would repeat it, hailed with delight by the great bulk of the people who resided north of Auckland. It was recognised amongst the people of that district that no one was better acquainted with their wants and requirements and tho necessity of cutting up the Crown lands in that part of New Zealand. Air McCallum relied upon a section in tho Land Act of 1913 to practically suggest that the Government had acted illegally in appointing Mr Vernon Reed to the Land Board. Now the section the lion, member relied upon was a section that only dealt with members who after their appointment did something wrong. Mr McCallum; "What is the spirit of the section?” Mr Herdman: “It did not deal with a man before he was appointed. It had nothing whatever to do with the case, and only applied to a, member convicted of felony after appointment. Section 224 of the Legislative Act dealt with the case of a man who had been convicted on indictment of corrupt practice. The Election Court did .not state that Mr Reed was subject to any incapacities at all. Air McCallum: “Road tho last clause of tho section.” Air Herdman: “Tho Act said that the man should be subject to-such incapacities as the court -specified. The court specified no incapacities at all.” Mr Isitt: "What incapacities is he subject to, then?” Mr McCallum: “It is in the Act.” Mr Herdman: “The Election Court has to specify the incapacities. Mr McCallum: “No: read/the next sub-clause.” Mr Herdman (reading): “Every person so convicted shall be incapable of holding any public office?” But he was never convicted in indictment. Mr McCallum: “Go on further.” Mr Herdman: “The Election Court never specified any incapacities. Sec-' tion 213 does not carry the matter any further, because it is governed by section 224. (After .reading clause 213). If you turn to section 224 you will find that there are no incapacities unless there has been a conviction on indictment or the judges of tho Election Court certify them. Air AlcCallum: “The report of the court does not even say that Air Reed lost his seat.” Mr Herdman: “His seat was declared void. I don’t think I can carry tho matter any further.” “WAS IT DECENT?” Mr L. AI. Isitt (Christchurch North): “The Attorney-General may manage to prove to his own satisfaction that What has been done is legal. Can ho prove that it was decent?” Opposition members: “That is the point.” . , , .. Mr Isitt: "As long as we lead political lives there will always be men who will do deplorable things to attain political office, but I thought the time had arrived when the Prime Minister would not lend himself to anything of the kind. Can anyone deny that an aspirant to political office who does dishonest things, plays a mean and contemptible part against an Opponent, should not he rewarded? Hero wo have a. Government that came into office with peculiar pretensions to political piety who deprecated ceaselessly in this House, on every platform in this country, the policy of spoils to the victors. They insinuated that those they wanted to depose had rendered themselves unworthy of office by questionable actions. Then we have the Prime Minister rewarding the man. who stoops to dishonest practice. Can tho Prime Minister deny it? Tho Prim© Minister! instead of saying that the man was disgraced—that tho whole Parliament, was disgraced by tho action of thisc. mangoes out of his way to reward him. The matter does not need labouring. There is not a man on this side of the House or tho other who does not know that if the leader of the Opposition had been guilty of such an appointment we should have beard streams of condemnation and protest. He cannot rise sufficiently above party spirit to condemn a thin<r that every men in the country ought to condemn- It will require more than legal quibbling co satisfy the people of the country over this matter. (Opposition cheers.) I would have been just as strong in my condemnation if it had occurred on the Opposition side. As long as I remain a member of this House I bhall protest auainst end condemn such actions on tho part of tho Prime Minister of this country.” (Hear, hear.) AXRi AIASSEY ASTONISHED. Tho Right Hon. W. F. Alassey: “1 am surprised at the debate that has taken place. We know perfectly well that the subject of the question is disliked by many members on the other side. Perhaps they have reason; perhaps they have not. I will not discuss that. But I shall put tho. position as it has occurred. For a long time past there has been a very great deal of agitation and intense dissatisfaction in the North of Auckland district with the administration of the Auckland Land Board. I have had reams of correspondence from settlers and the local board that things were being neglected. A petition was sent to me. asking me to separate the North of Auckland from the Auckland land district —to make it a separate district. I hardly saw my way to do this, though I asked for the

necessary power, but I compromised tho matter with the leading settlers by promising that at the first oppor tuaity I would place on the Land Board a representative of North of Auckland. Tho opportunity came, and I directed the Lands Department to appoint a man who happens to bo well known and favourably known — (Opposition laughter)—who had been returned by a majority of 1000 votes— A member: ‘‘Me never wa,.” Air Massey: ‘‘The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. 1 am speaking of Air Stewart, whoso election put his appointment out of tho question. When the election took place, the people approached me again and said the best man now available in tho whole of the North of Auckland peninsula was Air Vernon Reed, and they asked m© to appoint him.” Mr Isitt; “That did not justify y °Mr Massey: “It certainly justified me, because, as they pointed out, there was no other man available so capable of looking after their interests. Ho has a knowledge of toat huge district. He has been travelling over it for the last twenty years. He knows every piece of Crown lands in tho whole of the peninsula. I was convinced that the appointment was a good thing, and I appointed Air Reed accordingly. I have had scores of letters from the people of the North of Auckland, expressing satisfaction with the appointment, they being satisfied that the North of Auckland would no longer be neglected. I am prepared to defend this on any platform m any part of New Zealand.” Mr G, W. Russell; “You will have to do so.” . Air Alassey ; “Some very unkind and uncharitable references have been made to Air Reed in the course of the debate. He no doubt committed a fault. The judges of the Supreme Court said so.” , . , , . Air McCallum; "Who helped him to?” Mr Alassey: “They said he was guilty of breaking the law. On that point I have nothing to say. The judges decided that the punishment should be tho loss of his seat and disqualification from becoming again a candidate for twelve months. VVas not tho punishment sufficient? Opposition members: “No.” “I HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.”

Air Alassey. “Is there a man in this House who has not been guilty of breaking the law in connection with an election canvass? ’ Cries of “Nol” and “Name.” ■ Air Alassoy ; “I say inadvertently or otherwise. On one occasion I inadvertently broke the law, and if it had come out I should have been unseated. But there is no use going into that now. Air Reed was punished, and he has taken bis punishment like a man. Personally) I don't believe in persecution, and X say that he should not be persecuted.- 1 believe if it were possible for him to have contested the Bay of Islands seat again, he would have been returnee! by the largest majority ever recorded in that district. (Cries of “Oh 1”). Something is said about ‘Satan reproving sin.’ I have been in the House many years, and I have heard expressions of that sort. I would ask leading members of the Opposition—l don’t' refer to the right honourable gentleman who is thb leader are they blameless in this connection P Have offers never been made by anyone to them—to certain individuals?” - , Mr AlcCallum: "Don’t refer to what is dead and gone.” Air Alassey: “I don’t want to refer to what is dead and gone. It is quite evident the honourable member’s conscience accuses him. He should be the very last to make such an' interjection. I would ask Opposition members: have they never beard of offers of positions coming from ,the loading parties in order to affect ©lections?” Mr Forbes: “I never have.” Mr Massey: “A gentleman in Wellington was offered a very high' position in the public service of this country in order to prevent, hina recording his vote on a certain occasion.” Mr McCallum: “Give ns his name.” Mr Alassey: “With his consent I will agree to give tho name. I know all tho circumstances. And_ that is not the only instance I can think of. I can refer to cases that have occurred aver and over again.” Mr Isitt: “You promised yon would in trpduco a better condition of things.” , Mr Massey: “I am not justifying it in that way at all. I say the appointment was a legal appointment and a proper one. _lt was asked for by the people, and it has given great satisfaction to almost everyone—certainly to the great bulk of the people resident in the North of Mr G.. Witty (Riccarton) drew attention to the fact that within a week of the by-election twelve more justices of the peace wore created in the North. He had asked who recommended them, and could not get a satisfactory answer. It used to be the custom, before justices were appointed, to refer to members—(Ministerial cries of “Not always”). The subject was then allowed to drop.