WHAT THE PAPERS SAY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 263, 5 November 1932, Page 8

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY.

POINTS FROM THE PRESS.

PARLIAMENTARY METHODS,

The whole circumstances of Parliament have changed sinca was evolved. All the elaborate rules and regulations governing supply, for instance, were designed to give the House the fullest possible opportunity of checking and resisting the excessive demands of the Sovereign. Nowadays it is the Government that makes the demands, and the only effect of the cumbersome procedure is to delay the granting of supply, never to deny it. We are not likely to have to seek the protection of Parliament against a tyrannical monarch, though, there are times when the constituencies must regret that Parliaments seem incapable of protecting them against tyrannical Administrations. If the forms of the House, devised in the first place to prevent the imposition of unjust levies and to prevent interference with religion and trade —the two are sometimes linked in tlio standing orders —-were only used for those purposes we should have less reason to complain. But Parliamentary methods, as a distinguished engineer pointed out ill an address to the British Association, are hopelessly out of date and inefficient, and we sometimes think that the reverence of the members for the traditional procedure takes them rather out of touch with modern life. They live in a world of their own, and a very unreal one, in which unimportant issues may be magnified amazingly and important issues may bo correspondingly diminished. There is an illustration of what wc mean in the present fact that Parliament is proceeding in leisurely fashion with the discussion of things in general, at a cost of the order of hundreds of pounds a day, while the world without is pleading incessantly for efficiency and economy.—" Christchurch Times."

A SIMPLE QUESTION. The scene has shifted from the slums to the Highlands in the discussion of where the pioneers came from, and it will occur to most people that our legislators are becoming a little hit melodramatic on the subject. Let any colonist exchange notes with a few of his friends as to why his forbears came out to the colonies, and ho will find not that they were forced out or squeezed out of the Old Country, but that, endowed in most cases with that little extra enterprise that would have made them si success anywhere, they chose the adventurous life overseas, speculatively, it is true, but without underrating the hardships they were to encounter. To Wakefield the colonies were to be "civilised communities where men of culture and intellect need not find themselves companionless exiles." The history of the New Zealand Land Company may not bear close inspection, but, as Pember Reeves has said, "the character ofi the settlers which it then (in 1539) and afterwards gave New Zealand may well be held to cover a multitude of its sins." —" Christchurch Star/'

TALK AND BUSINESS. Mr. Barnard has the Labour outlook. To him one of the chief duties of Parliament is criticism of the Government. No doubt criticism is salutary, and free discussion is helpful. But when criticism beeomcs merely destructive and tedious repetition it ceases to be helpful. It is a farfetched idea that protests against such waste of time are inspired by sinister plans for a dictatorship, With the zeal of a comparatively new member, Mr. Ilargest appears to believo that good government can ho achieved by much talking. But surely there should he a distinction between aimless debating and discussion on specific proposals. Where Parliament often goes wrong is that members tliink they must talk to their constituents. So they should, but that is best done in the recess and in their own electorates. When Parliament is in session speeches should be directed to the actual business. If this were dono it would not be necessary (as so many members appear to find it necessary) to repeat again and again proposals, criticisms and arguments already advanced by other members. As an older member, Mr. Wilkinson perceives the futility of this repetition. Ho desires more businesslike methods. Tho test of the methods is whether the business is done in a satisfactory way and in reasonable time. Good government and administration are tho chief aims. In tho pursuit of these aims Parliament cannot ignore public opinion and popular desires and grievances. There must be a reasonable opportunity for discussion, but discussion should not bo allowed to end tho matter. Parliament is expected to do as well as to talk of what may be done. —" Evening Post."