INCIDENT IN THE LOBBY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19667, 8 December 1933, Page 8

INCIDENT IN THE LOBBY

RACING OFFICIAL STRUCK MR POLSON PROVOKED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, December 7. There was a sensational incident in the Parliamentary lobbies early this evening, when Mr W. J. Poison, incensed at the conviction that he was being made the 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 file chamber and the inner door of the lounge. If followed the rising of the House after the defeat of the Government's motion that urgency be accorded the passage of the Gaming Amendment Bill.

According to eye-witnesses of what took place, Mr PoLson, just as he was leaving the chamber, was accosted in the lobby by a stranger (Mr Sellers), who is alleged to have said, "Thank you, Poison, you are responsible for this.” Mr Poison walked away, then it is alleged, Mr Sellers said, "I am surprised at you Poison. We will 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. Stailworthy, 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 walked out of the lobby. Interviewed subsequently, he denied emphatically that he had made the statement "We will remember you for thin at the next election.” "All I said,” he added, "was ’thank you, Poison, you are responsible for this.’ Any other statement attributed to me 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 he was sorry he had lost his temper, but 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 Stailworthy had intended raising a question of privilege in the House, but in view of the apology he refrained from taking any action.

Provoked By Mr Forbes. When approached (or a statement, Mr Poison declined to comment on the incident In the lobby, but said In fairness to himself, an outline of what happened In the House in the afternoon should be given. "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 Mr Forbes was Prime Minister, In order that a valuable contribution to export marketing should not be lost. In addition, I had the endorsement of the Farmers' Union. That Bill has gone steadily down the Order Paper. On the other hand, Mr Healy’s Gaming Amendment Bill has been three times raised to the top of the Order Paper. I have no objection to Mr Healy getting the best run in the world, but I raised a point in the House as to whether I, as a private member, should not have similar treatment, seeing that I had priority of Introduction over Mr Healy. 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 see 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. lam a supporter 6f Mr Healy’s Bill, and I have found that several other members who are supporting the measure were as indignant as I was over the attitude of the Prime Minister, and we voted against the urgency motion as a pri>test against the action of Mr Forbes. Our votes were not cast with any intention of killing the Oamlng Amendment Bill."