QUESTIONS IN HOUSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26215, 27 July 1946, Page 8

QUESTIONS IN HOUSE

USE AS PROPAGANDA PROTEST BY MR FRASER REVERSION TO FORMER PRACTICE (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, July 26. An allegation by the Prime Minister, Mr P. Fraser, that an Opposition question was for propaganda purposes instead of to elicit information and that that, was an abuse of the Standing Orders led to a protracted and at times heated discussion in the House of Representatives to-day. He disagreed with the ruling of Mr Speaker in having admitted a question which had been submitted to him before it was asked in accordance with the practice followed since the start of the war, and the argument closed with a more or less tacit agreement to revert to the former system by which questions were asked direct and offending ones dealt with in the House. The Question which gave rise to the discussion was one asked by Mr M. H. Oram (Oppn. Manawatu), who gave notice of nis intention to ask the Minister in Charge of the Police Force, Mr P. Fraser, if he would say what steps were being taken to improve conditions in the Police Force. He also asked if the Minister would give instructions that detectives and police officers should be relieved from the duty of inquiring into minor offences such as breaches of rationing and price regulations, so as to enable them to devote their full time to the apprehension of offenders and the prevention of crime. Contents of Note In a note to his question, Mr Oram said that there would appear to be a considerable 'increase in the number of burglaries, house breakings and similar offences, while in the larger centres of population, detectives were frequently kept waiting about the court to give formal evidence regarding inquiries made by them in comparatively trivial cases. Rising to a point of order, Mr Fraser said that questions were to obtain information and not to make assertions, as the note to the question asked by the Member from Manawatu had done. It was a gross breach of the Standing Orders governing the asking of questions. Mr W. J. Poison (Oppn, Stratford) said that if the Prime Minister was going to curtail members so that the questions they asked were devoid of explanation, then the questions would be almost unintelligible. It would be a great disservice not only to the member asking the question, but to the country at large. Apart from that, Mr Speaker had been entrusted to decide whether questions were reasonable and should be allowed. He took it that Mr Oram’s question had been referred to Mr Speaker, and that he had permitted it to be asked. The suggestion of the Prime Minister would curtail the rights of members in asking questions in an arbitrary way. The privileges of members were involved, and these had been safeguarded by placing the matter in the hands of Mr Speaker. Mr Fraser said there was no attempt to curtail' the privileges of Parliament. Any relevant facts could be put into a question, but opinions were a different matter. Questions were for the purpose of eliciting information, and the statement in the note to Mr Oram’s question involved a charge against those responsible for the administration of the Police Force.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland: The question. was quite proper. Mr Speaker said he did not like to restrict members in asking questionsWhen questions .were lodged with Mr Speaker they were examined by the Clerk of the House and himself. Sometimes it was very difficult to determine the difference between statements of fact and opinion. He was satisfied that the qustion asked by Mr Oram complied with the Standing Orders, and that the note attached to it was not an expression of opinion.

Determining the Procedure

Mr Fraser said he would respectfully move that Mr Speaker’s ruling be not agreed with. Perhaps the whole matter of questions might be looked into by Mr Speaker. He suggested that the whole matter of asking questions should be gone into by a committee of the whole House or by Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker said that he would oe very pleased indeed to have the censorship of questions removed from him and restored to the House as before the war.

Mr Holland said he thought the Prime Minister had gone a little too far. “We gave a pledge to stand behind Mr Speaker, and whatever his rulings we will faithfully observe them,” he said. “ Surely we all recognise that we must have a chairman. We chose him ourselves and we will accept his rulings on this or any other question, whether they are for or against us. That is fundamental to parliamentary procedure.” “We always bow (to Mr Speaker’s rulings,” said the Prime Minister, “ but no Speaker is infallible, and I attach so much importance to this matter that I am prepared to dispute it in the interests of the House.” The implication of the note, he said, was that detectives were hanging around on trivial matters while burglaries were being committed. Change of System Urged The Minister of Finance, Mr W. Nash, said that during the war the onus of deciding which questions might be dangerous to the safety of the country had been placed on Mr Speaker. Jt was a question now whether that was necessary and whether anything other than the Standing Orders was required He suggested that questions should go straight to the House and then if Mr Speaker saw anyone offending he could pull him up. Mr Speaker said that he would like to see tne House agree to revert to the former system. Mr Holland said that the war-time decision had been made by mutual agreement without any resolution, and he did not think a resolution was required to revert to the former system