LAND BOARD APPOINTMENT

Otago Witness, Issue 3201, 21 July 1915, Page 10

LAND BOARD APPOINTMENT

MR VERNON REED’S POSITION. DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT. (From Och Own Cobbespondent.) WELLINGTON, July 14. A discussion regarding the appointment of Mr Vernon Reed as a member of the Auckland Land Board took place in the House this afternoon Mr M‘Callum asked the Prime Minister •whether it was true that ho, as Minister of Lands, had caused to be appointed to one of the land boards of the dominion an ex-member of Parliament who was recently unseated for corrupt practices on an election petition tried before two judges of the Supreme Court, and if so, was his attention called to —(a) section 224 of “The Legislature Act, 1908,” which expressly provides that a person convicted of any corrupt or illegal practice shall be incapable of holding any public or judicial office, and if he hokls any such office the office shall be vacated; and (b), the Minister’s own amendment of “The Land Act. 1908,” passed in 1913, he caused it to be enacted that if any member was guilty of negligent or improper conduct (in addition to faudulent conduct), which in the opinion of the Governor rendered him unlit for the office, his scat on the board should become vacant (see Lands Laws Amendment Act, 1913, No. 24, section 5) ?. Mr Massey replied as follows: —The lion, gentleman apparently misunderstands the position. Sub-clause one of section 224 provides that a person who commits any corrupt or illegal practice shall bo subject to such of the incapacities (if any) specified in. the section as the Election Court in its report states in its opinion he should bo subject to. Clause B of sub-section 2 of section 224 of “ The Legislature Act, 1908,” provides that a person convicted upon indictment shall be incapable of holding any public office. The gentleman referred to by the member for Wairau was not convicted on indictment, nor did the Election Court in its report express the opinion that he should be incapable of holding any public office. Section 5 of “ The Land Act, 1913,” has no bearing upon the case referred to by the hon. gentleman. That section does not deal with the making of appointments to land boards, but sets out the circumstances under which the seat of a member of a land board shall become vacated. The gentleman who has been appointed to the Auckland Land Board will prove a valuable additfon to that institution, inasmuch as ho has probably a better knowledge of the Crown lands in the north of Auckland than any other person in the dominion. This large and important district had not been represented on the Land Board for some years nast. IS THE APPOINTMENT POPULAR? Mr M‘Call um expressed dissatisfaction with ■ the answer, contending that it was not in accordance with law, and, moreover, that eve i if it were legally right, it was morally wrong, in view of the circumstances under which Mr Rood had been unseated for the Bay of Islands seat in the House. _ Mr Forbes and Mr Payne spoke to a similar effect, the latter stating that the appointment of Mr Reed as a member of Iho Land Board was unpopular in Auckland. Mr Coates said that there was no more ’

I popular appointment in Auckland than that I of Mr Reed to the Land Board. ' Opposition Members : Oh ! oh ! oh ! L Mr Coates said he was speaking as a North Auckland representative, and as one : who knew the constituency lately represented by Mr Rood. The court had decided I the matter of tire election petition, and it ! should be allowed to rest. The appoint--1 ment was a very popular one to the people of Auckland, j Mr Payne; No ; emphatically no ! i Mr Coates said that in the past North j Auckland had had no representative on the ! Land Board, and the settlers were very pleased with Mr Reed’s appointment. Mr Hornsby asked why the Government did not prosecute Mr Reed for voting at the recent by-election. - A Member: How do you know that he voted ? I Mr Hornsby: I know that he voted. He should have been prosecuted for demanding a voting paper. ! The Attorney-general (Mr Herdman) said : it was recognised in the north of Auckland ! that no man there was better acquainted I with their district than Mr Reed. The j Election Court had not stated that Mr Reed was not entitled to serve on a land board, j Mr Isitt said the Attorney-general might j prove that the appointment was a legal one, ! but he could not prove that it was a proper one. STATEMENT BY MR MASSEY. The Prime Minister said that for a long time there had been an agitation and dissatisfaction in the' north of Auckland with regard to the administration of the Crown lands in that district. Petitions had boon sent to him asking him to make the north of Auckland a separate land district. Ho had hardly seen his way to do this, although he had taken the necessary power to do so. He had compromised the matter by appointing the present member of the House for the Bay of Islands (Mr Stewart) as a member of the Land Board. This was before the Bay of Islands seat was declared vacant. When Mr Stewart was elected to the House ho could not sit on the Land Board, and he (Mr Massey) then received further pettiions asking him to appoint Mr Rood to the Land Board, as being the most suitable man in the district for the position. He took legal advice on, the matter, and ho was convinced that it’ would be quite legal. He had since received scores of letters from the north of Auckland expressing satisfaction with the appointment of Mr Rood. He was prepared to defend the appointment from any platfirm in the country. The judges decided that Mr Reed had committed a fault, and had ordered that he should forfeit his seat and bo disqualified from again holding a seat in Parliament for 12months. Was that not a sufficient punishment? He doubted whether there was any member of the House who at some time or other, inadvertently or otherwise, had not committed a breach of tho electoral laws. . ! Opposition Members: No! no! and “Shame.’' Mr Massey: I said inadvertently or otherwise. I believe I did it myself once. Mr Reed broke the law, and he was taking his punishment like a man. Ho would ask members of tho Opposition—he was not referring to the leader of that party—whether offers of positions had not been made by their side in connection with elections. _ j Opposition Members: No 1 no! Mr Massey: Is it not a fact that there

is a gentleman in Wellington to-day who was offered what is probably the highest position in this country in order to prevent him from recording his vote on a certain occasion ? Opposition Members: Name, name, name. Mr Massey: If I could get the gentleman’s consent I would give his name. The appointment of Mr Reed, he continued, was a legal and proper one. It was asked for by the settlors, and it was approved by the great bulk of the people.