OFFENSIVE TERMS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20895, 26 November 1937, Page 6

OFFENSIVE TERMS

DIGNITY OF HOUSE LOWERED MR POLSON RESPONSIBLE FOR BREEZE By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, November 25. When the vote for the Dairy Industry Account was being considered in the House to night, Mr W. J. Polson (Nationalist, Stratford) criticised the expenses of the Guaranteed Price Com mittee, the amount totalling £2OO. He was doubtful whether the country got £2OO worth of value for the committee’s report. There was difficulty in getting any real information about what happened at the committee’s meeting. He understood that reports were sent to the Minister who deliverately concealed the report. The dairy Industry had been asking for that information. Mr Savage rose to a point of order, asking if a member was entitled to say that a Minister was deliberately concealing a. report. The Chairman of Committees. Mr E. J. Howard, said that the Estimates covered a very wide area and that he had always ruled that unless a member objected to a term which was not unparliamentary he would not interrupt the business of the Committee by asking for its withdrawal. Mr Savage: I object to the term used. I want to see that Ministers are not Insulted. T wish to know whether the member can get away with the term he used. Mr Howard again explained his ruling. and stated if the Minister objected to the statement then he would ask Mr Polson to withdraw, but Mr Nash had not objected. Mr Savage; I move that the Chairman reports progress and asks Mr Speaker for a ruling. This is not good enough. The motion to report progress was opposed by the Opposition, who forced it to a division, the motion being carried by 39 votes to 17. When the House had resumed and after Mr Howard had reported the incident to Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said it seemed to him that if the Chairman’s ruling were upheld they would be finding themselves getting into difficulties. It was the duty of the Chairman or the Speaker to see that' offensive terms were not used. Two such terms had been used that night. One Minister had been called a loafer, but that had been allowed to pass, and the other expression was that a Minister had deliberately concealed a report. "What I am concerned about more than anything else,” said Mr Savage, "is that unless the House will protect Individual members maybe the time will come when they will make efforts to protect themselves.” The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates: What do you mean by they will protect themselves? Not Unparliamentary The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said that members on his side of the House were quite in accord with the Prime Minister that the dignity of the House should be upheld, but he held that there was nothing unparliamentary about the words used. The Ministers had not objected to them. The . Chairman of Committees was a better judge I than any member of the terms used and whether they should be withdrawn. There was ro desire by members of his side of the House to lower its dignity, and he thought that Ministers were quite able to look after themselves.

The Minister of Railways, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, supported Mr Savage and stated that the words “deliberately concealed’” meant that the Minister had information which he was in honour bound to give. Mr Coates said there were two points to consider. The Chairman of Committees was the controller of the Committee. Mr Savage: As far as relevancy is concerned. Mr Coates: The words “deliberately held back” are not on the black list. Mr Nash: You were not in the House. “Deliberately concealed” were the words used. Mr Coates: I was in the House and I was listening. The words were “deliberately held back.” Mr Nash: No they were “deliberately concealed.” Mr Coates: My word is as good as yours. Mr Sullivan: They were “deliberately concealed.” Mr Coates, after several more interjections of this nature, stated that Mr Howard was as fair a chairman as it was possible to get. Mr J. A. Lee explained that he had not been in the House at the time, but be thought that the words used meant that the Minister was concealing something he should make public then they should be withdrawn. It was sometimes inadvisable for a Minister to make public certain reports, and If the words had been used in that sense he did not think the Minister was being accused of something he should not do. Would Not Object Mr Nash said he had heard the words “delibe: itely concealed” used. The Chairman had asked him if he objected. “I said no,” added Mr Nash, “but the term was offensive. I would not, however, object to anything the Member for Stratford said, no matter what it was.” He contended that the Prime Minister was in order in protesting against the use of an offensive term. Mr W; A. Bodkin said it was impossible for Mr Speaker to get the exact words used, also the atmosphere of the House at the time the incident occurred. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, said he had listened very intently to what was said, and had no doubt that what was in the mind of the member was some distinct motive prompted the Minister to conceal something. Others might take an entirely different view. Mr Howard, after outlining the circumstances of the controversy, said the question was not whether the words used were unparliamentary but whether the Chairman of Committees was in charge of the House and allowed to give rulings. Speaker’s Difficulty Mr Speaker said he was placed in a position of considerable difficulty. Normally when the House was in Committee the Chairman of Com-

mittees was the judge as to the conduct of the House. Not being present he had missed the atmosphere of the matter. Mr Howard had probably felt that the words in question verged on unparliamentary usage, but he had referred them to the Minister concerned. who had decided to let them pass. “I think in the circumstances, not being present and being placed at a great disadvantage, that I should not interfere with the decision of the Chairman of Committees. I think I would be creating an unsafe precedent if I were to do so." He added that many words used in debate in the House were of questionable taste and their duty was to prevent words that were clearly unparliamentary. The matter must be left to the discretion of the Chairman. He asked all members to be careful in their use of words