SENSATION IN LOBBIES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18266, 8 December 1933, Page 7

SENSATION IN LOBBIES

VISITOR KNOCKED DOWN MR, POLSON ANNOYED AN ALLEGED THREAT (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. There was a sensational incident in the Parliamentary lobbies early last evening, when the Government member for Stratford, Mr. W. J. Poison incensed at the conviction that he was being made a victim of a threat, forcibly struck Mr. H. R. Sellers, secretary of the New Zealand Racing Conference, and sent him sprawling on the carpeted floor. Subsequently, a reconciliation was effected, Mr. Poison accepting an apology from Mr. Sellers, who, up to that juncture, had been a complete stranger to him.

Several members witnessed the happening, the scene of which was the lobby which runs at right, angles to the main door of the chamber and the inner door of the lounge. It followed the rising of the House after the defeat of t lie Government's, mot ion that urgency should he accorded the passage of the Gaming Amendment Bill. According to eye-witnesses’ reports of what took place, Mr. Poison, just as lie was leaving the Chanrber, was accosted in the lobby h.v a stranger, Mr. Sellers, who is alleged to have said: “Thank you, Mr. Poison. Yon are responsible for this.” “GOOD FOR YOU, POLSON” Mr. Poison walked away. Then, it is alleged, Mr. Sellers said: “I am surprised at you Mr. Poison. We remember you for this at the next election. ” Mr. Poison turned about, and saying: “Are you threatening me?” knocked Mr. Sellers down. The action of the member for Stratford was endorsed by Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden), who said to Mr. Sellers: “I am a witness. .Don’t you dare intimidate a member of Parliament like that.. Good for you, Poison.”

Mr. Sellers then walked out, of the lobby. Interviewed subsequently, he denied emphatically that he had made the statement: “We will remember you for this at next election.” “All I said,” he added, “was ‘thank you, Mr. Poison. You are responsible for this’. Any other statement attributed to mo is absolutely incorrect.” After the House met in the evening, Mr. Poison received an apology from Mr. Sellers, and this he accepted.

Mr. Poison intimated to Mr. Sellers that lie was sorry he had lost his temper, blit pointed out that he was under great provocation on account of what had happened in the House. He willingly buried the hatchet.

It is understood that Mr. Stallworthy had intended raising a question of privilege in the House, but in view of the apology lie refrained from taking any action. "When approached for -a statement, Mr. Poison declined to comment on the incident in the lobby, but said that, in fairness to himself, an outline of what happened in the House in the afternoon should he given. AN EXPLANATION “On the first day of the session,” said Mr. Poison, “I introduced the Meat Export Amendment Bill, which is a replica of the unanimous report of the Agricultural and Stock Committee of the United Government —of which the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes was I’rime Minister—in order that a valuable contribution to export marketing should not be lost. In addition, it, had the endorsement of the Farmers’ Union. That bill has got steadily down the order paper. On the other hand, Mr. E. F. Hcalv's Gaming Amendment Bill has been three times raised to the top of the order paper. “I have no objection to Mr. Ilealy getting the best run in the world, but I raised the point in the House as to whether I, as a private member, should not have similar treatment, seeing that riind priority of introduction over Mr. Ilealy. Surely I was entitled to consideration for my bill. The reply of the Prime Minister made me most indignant. He indicated that the reason why my measure had been kept at the bottom of the order paper was that I had not been to sec him, and also that nobody wanted the legislation. “I have always relied upon my rights as a member, and I have never contemplated sitting on the doorsteps of Ministers for authority to exercise those rights. Actually, I am a supporter of Mr. Healy’s bill, and 1 have found tliat several other members who are supporting the measure were as indignant as T was over the attitude of the Prime Minister, and we voted against the urgency motion as a nrotest against, the action of Mr. Forbes. Our votes were not east, with any intention of killing the Gaming Amendment Bill.”