A PARTY WRANGLE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 151, 1 August 1914, Page 12

A PARTY WRANGLE.

ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS. A HARBOUR BOARD CHAIRMAN. [From our own Parliamentary Beporter.] WELLINGTON, July 31. The greater part of the afternoon was taken up by a discussion on the Committee's report on the petition of Mr W. T. Jennings, who was for many years a Liberal member of Parliament, asking Parliament to reimburse his Supreme Court expenses in connection with the testing of the legality of his removal from the Waitara Harbour Board. The position was that Mr Jennings had for at least ten years sat on the board as a Government nominee. In 1910 an Act was passed disqualifying from such nomination anyone who did not have a property qualification in the district of the board to which he might be appointed. After Mr Jennings was appointed it was found that he did not have this qualification, and he was asked by the Minister of Marine to resign. He refused to do so, and took the case to the Supreme Court, which decided against him. Mr Jennings therefore ceased to be a member of the board, and he then sought by petition to have his expenses in fighting the case refunded. The chairman of the Petitions Committee (Mr J. H. Bradney) reported tho-day that the Committee had no recommendation to make. From the discussion which followed it was clear that the Committee was considerably at variance as to the justice of this finding, and several members warmly espoused Mr Jennings's cause. POLITICAL BIAS? Mr J. Payne (Grey Lynn) alleged that the report of the Committee was one which showed distinct party bias, and was au instance of the importance of minority reports being submitted from Committees, so as to aid the Government in forming an opinion as to how to proceed. He detailed the history of the case, and suggested that the Government should at least refund to Mr Jennings the legal expenses he incurred in having his position defined by the Supreme Court. Mr J. S. Dickson (Parnell) said that as a member of the Committee, he would like to contradict what the last Speaker had said regarding political influence. He himself had felt that Mr Jennings had had been harshly treated, and had supported the petition. Mr E. P. Lee (Oaniaru): Why did he contest the case? Mr Dickson: Through bad advice from a lawyer. (Loud laughter). Mr Dickson moved that the report be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. Mr Payne, in personal explanation, said that when he referred, to political bias he did not refer to the Committee, but to the members of the Waitara Harbour Board. Mr T. W. Rhodes (Thames) opposed the motion to refer the report" back. The conclusion of the Committee Avas the only one possible on the evidence.

Mr G. Witty (Riccarton) supported the motion to refer the Committee's report back for further consideration. Mr Witty said that M r Jennings had been a member of the Ward for 19 years, and he had only nine months more to complete the term of his appointment. Under these conditions, there must have been some feeling—indeedj something radically wrong for him to be turned off the board.

Mr H. Ji Hi Okey (Taranaki) said that as presenter of the petition he intended to support the amendment to refer it back. It was no fault of Mr Jennings that he had, under the Amending Act of 1910, been nominated illegally. He thought Mr Jennings was quite right under the circumstances to contest the matter. • : THE MINISTER'S REPLY.

The Hon. ?F. M. B. Fisher said that Mr Jennings's claim could not be granted eveu if the petition were referred back. His claim contained items which no Government could grant. Mr Jennings was appointed in &p±A, 1911, and the judgment of the Court was delivered two or three weks before his three years' term of office expired. On May 13, 1913, three members of the Board had telegraphed him (Mr Fisher) protesting against Mr Jennings sitting on the Board, because it had been found that he had been illegally appointed. Mr Fisher traced the history of the case by reading all the correspondence which passed between Mr Jennings and himself. The point was that Mr Jennings was not on the roll of electors of the Board at the time he was appointed—a necessary qualification. The Committee could not authorise the payment of the claim. A member: It could on the condition that only the necessary expenses were paid. .Mr Fisher: There was no condition. Mr Dickson (Parnell): There was. Mr Fisher: There was no condition. Mr Dickson .(hotly): There was! Be fair. Mr Bradney (chairman of the Committee), appealed to by the Minister, said there had : been no condition';,-'' Mr Fisher alleged that Mr Jennings had taken the Supreme Court action so that he could hang on to his seat on the Board as long as possible must have come —he was blotted out by the Court's decision. ■•'-.- Mr Isitt (Christchurch North) said that they. did not want any further evidence of political bias against Mr Jennings than that shown in the speech of the Minister of Marine. Mr J, Vigor Brown (Napier) supportend the amendment to refer the petition back to the Committee. He explained, as a member of the Committee, that the idea of the report being brought in as it was, was to allow the matter to be discussed in the House, with the distinct suggestion that it should be referred back. He himself could see no evidence of political bias being shown at the proceedings of "the Committee. After further discussion the motion to refer the report back to the Committee was carried on the voices.