Incident in House.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 939, 8 December 1933, Page 6

Incident in House.

Knocked Down.

Member Strikes Stranger in Lobby.

(“ Star ” Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, December 8. SPRAWLING on the carpeted floor of a Parliamentary lobby, Mr H. R. Sellers, secretary of the New Zealand Racing Conference, was the central figure in an incident last evening, when Mr W. J. Poison, member for Stratford, believing that he was being made the victim of a threat, struck Mr Sellers. Subsequently, Mr Sellers apologised to Mr Poison and Mr Poison told Mr Sellers, who up to the time of the incident had been a complete stranger to him, that he was sorry that he had lost his temper.

Several members witnessed the happening, the scene of which was the lobby which runs at right angles to the main door of the chamber and the inner door of the lounge. It 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 Poison, 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 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 Stallworth}', member for Eden, who said to Mr Sellers, “ I am a witness. Don’t you dare intimidate a member of Parliament like that. Good for you, Poison ” Remark Emphatically Denied. Mr Sellers walked out of the lobby. Interviewed subsequently, he denied emphatically that he had made the statement, “ We will remember you for this at 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 Stallworthy had intended raising a question of privilege in the House, but in view of the apology he refrained from taking any action.

When approached for a statement Mr Poison declined to comment on the incident in the lobby, but said that in fairness to himself an outline of what happened in the House in the afternoon should be given. What Happened in House.

“ 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 it had the endorsement of the Farmers’ Union. That Bill has got 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 Ilealy getting the bust run in the world, but I raised the point in the House as to whether I, as a private membti, 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 or the Prime Minister made me most indignant, lie indicated that the reason my meisure had been kept at the bottom of the order pi:per 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 1 have never contemplated sitting on the doorsteps of Ministers for authority to exercise those rights. Actually I am a supporter of Mr Ilealy’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 protest against the action of Mr Forbes. Our votes were not cast with any intention of killing the Gaming Amendment Bill.”