A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 47, 10 August 1907, Page 2

A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE

Harbour Board Committee Etiquette

IT is becoming more evident as time goes on that Mr J. H. Bradney took a wise step when he moved his resolution that committee meetings of the Harbour Board should be open to the Press. It is eminently undesirable that there should be any secrecy in connection with matters in which the public have a vjtal interest, and the administration of affairs appertaining to the harbour is certainly a matter of paramount importance. By the presence of Press representatives at the committee meeting held on Friday last, the public were given an opportunity of learning some strange things, in the way of procedure. If the method observed on that occasion is representative of the usual mode of procedure, then it is certainly time that the accounts of these meetings were made public property.

The statements which were made by Mr W. J. Napier with reference to the alleged damage done to the ferroconcrete piles may be correct or may not. We express no opinioa on that point. Mr Napier took the trouble to make a voyage in a launch underneath the railway wharf, and the result of his investigation led him to state definitely that some of the piles were damaged. He would hardly have expressed such an opinion unless he had good proof with which to support it. And, in any case, he had an undeniable right to record the result of his investigations. The onus of proof would lie with him, and apparently he was willing to bear that onus. Anyway, it would have been an easy matter for the members of the Board to prove or disprove his statements by making a personal inspection without delay. This was done on the following Tuesday. The natural question is why it was not done before.*

By£>|j|pjk ' question .^really resolves itsejf^ijrfo^otie of prsg£4.ure. Every member of'fche Board,. %'bether in committee;; or out ybi committee,, should have the right of free speech" -so', long as he confines bwnself within the recognised rules of debate. So far as we can see, no laws of etiquette were infringed by Mr Napier, but the flat contradictions interspersed to his utterances by the chairman (the Hon. E. Mitchelson), were certainly out of place. If Mr Mitchelson considered that Mr Napier was out of order in making his statements, it would have been more dignified for him to rule in that direction. But to constantly interrupt with contradictory interjections was neither a courteous nor a dignified proceeding on the part of the chairman.

Mr Mitchelson has, of course, the right to his opinion on the subject, and there is no reason why he should not be at perfect liberty to express that opinion. The same right should have been given to Mr Napier. There is no privilege about the matter, it is a question of right which is involved. In any case, the procedure adopted by Mr Mitchelson would certainly do more harm than good. He may be perfectly correct; in his contention that the piles referred to by Mr Napier are undamaged, but he would Hot assist his cause by keeping up a running fire of contradictions. He would be far more liable to damage it in the eyes of outsiders. It is no part of the duty of a chairman to binder a speaker by interjecting remarks, nor is such a proceeding calculated to set a good example to other members of the Board.

And that raises the question as to what would have occurred had any other member of the Board persisted in punctuating Mr Napier's speech with interjections. Would it not have been the duty of the chairman to call him to order ? But, if the chairman himself sets a precedent in this respect, how could he, with any degree of consistency, refuse another member for doing so ? Now that Chairman Mitchelson has himself set the fashion, it is only to be expected that members in more humble positions will follow his example. This raises up visions of exciting meetings in the near future, and, by the philanthropy of Mr Bradney, accounts ot these meetings will be vouchsafed to an amusement-seeking public through the columns of the Press. Certainly, if members do kick over the traces on any future occasion, they will have good grounds on which to justify their action.