DAYLIGHT SESSIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 105, 6 May 1929, Page 10

DAYLIGHT SESSIONS.

;| WORK OF PARLIAMENT. 7 PREVIOUS TRIAL RECALLED. I ... • i SIR JOSEPH WARD'S INNOVATION. Assuming that the Select Committee of the House of Representatives, which sat in Wellington some days ago to consider alterations in the Standing Orders, recommends that "daylight sittings" be resorted to, the experiment, if adopted, will be watched with interest, especially as it has been tried in the past and found unsatisfactory. Another point involving a bigger principle (says the Wellington "Post"), is the possible introduction of the closure, but it is not thought likely that; a recommendation will be made at this stage for such an innovation in New Zealand, even though it may have been adopted in other countries. It does not seem to be generally known that the New Zealand House of Representatives has already had some experience of "daylight sittings," or what was termed at the time "morning sittings." Bitter complaint was made in the House in the "nineties" that the Government forced measures through the House by prolonging the sittings into the early hours of the morning, and eventually on July 10, 1901, Sir Joseph Ward, as Colonial Secretary, moved "that until further ordered this session, on two of the days set apart for Government business only, the House meet for the dispatch of business at 10.30 a.m., and that on those days no business shall be taken after 10.30 p.m., at which hour the House shall adjourn." Sir Joseph asked for a fair trial for the innovation, expressing the hope that it would enable members at the end of the session to return to their homes as fresh and vigorous and as able to carry on their respective private work as they were at the beginning of the session.

Apparently Sir Joseph Ward has not in the past twenty-eight years altered his view about day sittings, despite the fact that they were abandoned, for he has been one of the keenest advocates of the change since tie-revival, of-the proposal. ,

Committee Chairman Complained. The motion of July, 1901, was carried on the voices, but it was rescinded after only a few weeks' trial, on the motion of the Premier, Mr. Seddon. One of the reasons for departing from the rule was that insufficient time was available for committees of the House to meet. Another was that it took too long to get the Estimates through, and that tho session was unduly prolonged. Moving the rescission of the resolution on Sep~tember 12, 1901, Mr. Seddon stressed! as his main reason the fact that the chairman of the various committees re-1 ported that if the morning sittings continued it would not be possible to do justice to the work coming before them. The proposal was strongly contested, frequent reference being made to the physical prostration which long sittings at night produced. Sir Joseph Ward admitted that owing to the amount of Committee work, the early sittings had proved very inconvenient, and he therefore thought that the Premier's proposal to commence at 2.30 p.m. and sit through without any limitation of evening hours was the best course to adopt. Mr. R. McNab said that while he had hailed with pleasure the motion when first brought down, and had hoped it would bring about a new era in connection with the work of the House, he was satisfied the system had proved a failure. By 34 votes to 24, day sittings were abolished.

The Closure Principle.

| One argument which had been frequently adduced by Governments in regard to curtailing the length of sittings has been that it is necessary to sit late in order to get legislation through, as some members —or parties—are overtalkative. This difficulty has been overcome by other Legislatures by the introduction of the closure rule, but the opinion of the majority of members in the present House is understood to be against that practice. It would probably be the last resort as a means of getting the business of the House through. The present Prime Minister (the Eight Hon. Sir Joseph Ward) recently expressed himself as being dead against any closure rule. "I think the hours we sit ought to be named, and the House should rise automatically at those times," he said. "This would settle everything. I think the old idea of talking things out is past, and if it does occur it only means prolongation of the session. Even if we did sit a few weeks longer each year, it would be worth while to have business done

well. As a matter of fact the process of legislation by exhaustion is not liked by anyone, and all members will welcome a system of getting the public work conducted more efficiently. I am quite sure if members of the House are willing to try reasonable hours, though it means prolonging tlie sessions a fortnight or a month, it will make for their comfort and more complete legislation,"