BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16815, 18 August 1922, Page 4

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

MR M’CQMBS’S MEMO. ‘ A CRAVE INDISCRETION.” (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, August 17. Breach of privilege is of such rare occurrence in Parliament that members regarded with keen interest a charge of this character made against Air Al‘Combs, member for Lyttelton, in respect to references to the Boundary Commissioners which he had inserted in an explanatory memorandum accompanying his Proportional Voting and Country Quota Bill. Though there were occasional suggestions that the debate was a waste of time, members spent the whole afternoon on the subject, and had not exhausted their eloquence when the House adjourned for dinner. Mr Speaker, who had been requested to rule whether Mr AT Combs’s action constituted prima facie a breach of privilege gave his decision. He read a statement from the Reader of Biffs as to an assurance given by Mr M’Combs that he had permission from the Speaker to circulate tlie memorandum. *‘J exceedingly regret,” said the Speaker. “ that the member for Lyttelton should have so misled both the Reader of Bills and myself. In future T shall very carefully scrutinise every paper the honourable member for Lyttelton asks my permission to circulate.” As far as the question of privilege was concerned that was for the House to decide if the Speaker held that a prima facie case had been made out. He was of opinion that a prima facie case had been made out. Later in the afternoon the Pr’mo Minister submitted the following motion : That in stating to Air Speaker and the Bills reader that there was nothing improper in the explanatory memorandum of his Proportional Representation and Country Quota Bill, where as as it contained the following paragraph:—“Under proportional representation there would be no necessity to alter the boundaries of Kaiapoi electorate in order to protect Reform interests, because the Reform Party would secure the rep- , lesentation it is entitled to ir« the combined electoral districts of Christchurch,” the member for Lyttelton was guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House.

The Prime Alinister said that the insertion of the paragraph was wrong and improper, but the offence was aggravated tenfold by the fact that tho Speaker and an officer of the House were misled as to the paragraph, and it was allowed to appear. Any member in the heat of debate or on the spar of the moment might make a mistake and say things that lie ought not to say, but when a man of decent instincts made a mistake he would take the first opportunity of expressing his regret. He had looked in vain for an expression of regret or any sign of repentance from Air Al’Combs, so far as his action in this caee was concerned.

Air Al’Combs: I have nothing to regret.

The Prime Minister: T am sorry to hear the hon member say that. It was unpleasant for him to have to find fault with any member of the House, but it was his duty to do so in this case. As to the paragraph in the memorandum and the alteration of the Kaiapoi boundaries the law was perfectly clear on the point. It was the privilege of any elector or section of electors to petition the Boundaries Commissioners if thoy did not agree with the way in which the boundaries were defined. In his own district tho boundaries had been altered, owing to increase of population, in a way that was never contemplated years ago. A section of the electors were dissatisfied and petitioned for the old boundaries to be maintained. The Commissioners, however, would not grant tho petition. . A Labour member: You never suggested any petition to them. The Prime Minister: I certainly did not. Air Holland : That is the difference. The Prime Alinister: The petition was forwarded to me and I forwarded it on. Air Al’Oombs : You would say it was highly improper to suggest a petition. The Prime Alinister: The hon member has his own case to defend. Air Alassey added that the member of Parliament was quite within his rights in calling the attention of the Commissioners to anything that he considered wrong in the boundaries. But the statement was a minor part of the offence. A far more serious offence was that the Speaker and Reader of Bills were misled into allowing the paragraph to appear. “NOTHING IMPROPER.” Air M’Combs immediately rose to reply, but tho Speaker reminded the House that a seconder was required to the motion. Air AUCombs said he would second it, as he wanted to be sure of an opportunity of defending himself. He denied that he had intended to mislead Air Speaker or the Bill Clerk. When any member exercised his right to introduce a Bill it was customary to attach an explanatory memorandum where it might bo deemed necessary to assist members’ knowledge of it. The standing orders required him to submit tho explanatory memorandum to Air Speaker or the Bill Clerk for approval. • I assured the latter it was all right, and in my opinion now it still is.” said Mr M’Combs. “ I did not wilfully mislead the Bill Clerk. Regarding Air Speaker, that happened later. I went to the Government Printer and ordered 210 copies of the slip, for which I was to pay 255. I submitted one to Air Speaker, and asked to be allowed to have them distributed in the House. Air Speaker asked what it was. He appeared to be under the impression that it was a circular from outside. I assured him there was nothing improper in it, as I knew then and maintain now that it was all right.” Air Al’Combs continued that, having got the Speaker’s assent, lie gave tho memorandum to a messenger to distribute. As a matter of fact he could have franked it and had it posited to members much more expeditiously. It was only casually that he had mentioned to the Bill Clerk that lie had Air Speaker’s permission to distribute it. KAIAPOI THE EXAATPLE. Air AT’Combs elaborated the operation of the quota principle to show why, as he contended, it was essential to make use of the Kaiapoi electorate as an example. He suggested it was not always possible to arrest attention unless illustrations were given or contrasts made. He had previously stated dispassionately that the Reform Party was not securing the share of representation in the Christchurch district to which it was entitled. The Reformers were, therefore, driven to an expedient which he had described in his memorandum. “They had either a front door method by means of pro use the bad| door.”

Air M’Combs was very exhaustively j discussing the boundaries of Kaiapoi . and the readjustments mad© by the : commissioners, when Air APLeod raised i a point of order that the member was j travelling outside tho scope of the j motion. Air Speaker ruled that when a mem- j her was being charged with a breach ; of the standing orders it was usual to allow him great latitude. Air M’Combs expressed the hope that he was not offending, but he wished to put his. case properly to the jury. ‘• 1 hope,” he said, addressing Reform members, “ that T am appealing to an impartial tribunal. That remains to be seen. The fact that one juryman would rather not listen to me. that he would gag mo, that does not imply . that, so far as he is concerned, he is j impartial. Aly action has been per- ; fectly honourable and above board, and I don’t care a brass farthing for your j decision.” “ Would the Government; ; have taken similar action if the refer- i ence had been to a Liberal?” asked '■ Air Al’Combs, who declared that the | Prime Alinister would have brushed it j aside. “ A HEINOUS OFFENCE.” Sir William Merries declared that he I bs.d listened with great attention to the j member for Lyttelton, but he had not j heard him touch the question. “He j does nob seem to be aware—and I pity j his condition —he does not seem to be aware of the heinousness of the offence ho has committed. I do not find fault that the allegation was made against the Reform Party, but that it was a deception performed in regard to the privileges of. the House.” Sir William Herries. dealing with the suggestion that Air Al’Combs could just a ( : easily have posted his memorandum, declared that this was quite a different thing from circulating a statement under tho imprimatur of Air Speaker. If it had been circulated by post unofficially. it would have been open to the Boundary Commissioners to take action against the member for Lyttelton for libel, but Air Al’Combs had committed a gross libel on the Commissioners under the privileges of Parliament, secured through a deception. Sir William added that he had never previously hoard of a. member trying to use his privileges for such purposes. Air Bart ram : Simply party talk. Sir William Herries : The honourable gentleman and his party are trying to drive it into a question of party.

Air Statham, who commenced with a declaration that he did not approve of Air Al’Combs’s reference nor his method cf securing its circulation, said he had looked into the legal aspect of the matter. and felt that if the Prime Alinister relied on what transpired between ALAl’Combs and Air Speaker and the Bill Clerk, then no breach of privilege had been committed. He defined breach of privilege according to well-known authorities, one of whom held that it was not sufficient to constitute a breach of privilege if the words were offensive to members ; they must be an attack on the character or conduct of the House. Further definitions were quoted by tho member, until the Prime Alinister interrupted: “ What has this to do with it?’’ Air Statham : I admit the whole debate is a waste of time. Mr Al’Combs : Yes, a howling farce. CHANGED GROUND.

Air Holland said that Air Alassey had asked tho Speaker to rule whether the words complained of constituted a breach of privilege, but in his motion and tho argument of Sir William Her ries the Government had changed ground. He thought that the only ex planation of Air Massey taking action was to fill in time. For the past five or six weeks the House had simply been marking time. He wanted to draw attention to the Government’s partiality this afternoon. A question full of libel had been put in the House, and the Prime Alinister did not utter a word of dissent. If this matter had referred to the boundaries of Buffer or a Liberal electorate, not a word would have been said. The Government had shifted ground, and alleged in ita motion that Air Al’Combs had wilfully misled the Speaker and Bill Clerk. Air Al’Combs had given his assurance that there was no wilful misleading, and the House should accept his assurance. The motion only amounted to making the House the laughing-stock of the country. The Hon W. Nosworfcliy justified the debate by remarking that it would ensure that a similar occurrence did not happen again. The most serious aspect of the matter was the incrimination of the Boundary Commissioners. He told Air Al’Combs that he was a very slippery member of the House, and this time he had got into trouble. Air Nosworthv, on the Speaker’s attention being drawn, withdrew this remark. Air Wilford said that from a judicial consideration breach -of privilege and abuse of privilege were two very different things. For the latter there was no redress. No order or rule of the House had been disobeyed, and all there was in the matter was whether Air Al’Combs deliberately or wilfully misled the House. Air Al’Combs had said it was not intentional, and it was the usual custom in the House to take a member's word. Mr Sullivan suggested that Mr Massey should withdraw- the motion in view- of Air M’Combs’s assurance and tho authorities quoted.

Tho debate was continued by the Hons C. J. Parr and AY. Downie Stewart, Alessrs Jones. Lysnar and Reed, who maintained that a breach of privilege had been committed. Mr Witty defended the Representation Commissioners and the Prime Alinister from the charge of corruption in connection with the alteration of the Kaiapoi boundaries. Air M.’Callum sought to solve the problem by moving the following amendment : “ That whilst accepting the assurance of the member for Lyttelton that he believed the statements in tho Memorandum to be true, the House is of opinion that he was guilty of grave indiscretion in reflecting on the Boundary Commissioners under the privilege of the forms of this House; further, the House expresses continued confidence in the Commissioners and it* regret that a member should libel them in a manner which prevented them from obtaining redress in the Supremo Court.” The Prime Minister said he could not accept the amendment, though it was a great deal stronger against the member for Lyttelton than his own motion. The amendment failing to find a seconder was not further discussed. Air Bart ram. Dr Thacker, Alessrs Isitt, Edie, Fraser, Savage, ami the Hon A. T. Ngata contended that Mr M’Combs was not guilty of committing a breach of privilege. Air Alaesey having replied, his motion was put to the House, and on a division it was carried by 44 to -1.