Legislative Methods.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18777, 23 August 1926, Page 8

Legislative Methods.

In referring. once more to the determination of the House of Representatives to pass the Town Planning Bill unamended, we ran the risk of being accused of needlessly carping at a good measure. That risk we feel obliged to take, because, although the ideal inspiring the Bill is wholly admirable, the Bill itself contains some grave defects, and, what is far more important, the attitude of the House must alarm everyone who thinks seriously about politics. Two or three members have been urging that the Bill is.in some respects very far from satisfactory, and that, everyone being agreed upon the principle of it, it would be wise to postpone it until the defects are removed, so far as consideration can show the way to their removal. " This cry of Postpone, " Postpone !" the Prime Minister replied. " Why postpone if we recognise " that an evil exists? Why not get the "principles on the Statute Book, and "»/ we find that it does not work out "we can amend it"! Sir Joseph Ward backed up Mr Coates, giving the same strange reason for his opposition to postponement "Let the Bill "reach the Statute Book," he said, "and then they would be able to see "where the shoe pinched" ! Mr Holland gave a less unsound, but still a quite inadequate reason, for his support of the Government's attitude: it would be years, he said, before the Bill could come into effective operation. When the Bill was in Committee, the "betterment" clause was criticised, and Mr Coates defended it, in a speech which was heartily supported by the Leader of the Opposition, in this extraordinary language: "In his opinion, the clause "was not at all satisfactory. Several " alterations were required. If the Bill "were passed he would have the Bill "recommitted so that the betterment "clause might be reconsidered." It happens often enough, of course, that for the sake of convenience the House will accept a clause, to be recommitted later, but this happens,, as a rule, when everyone knows exactly what alteration

should and will be made —that is to say, when for the convenience of business the House can move on without waiting for the mechanical work of the draftsman. But this is a totally different matter. The House as a whole agreed to pass what it -knew, and admitted, was a faulty measure. It was not as if this was the only opportunity to "get the principles on " the Statute Book"; for members declared that the country was unanimous concerning the principle of tie Bill, so that there is no obstacle which can be overcome only by immediate action. The episode cannot but cause misgivings to those, and they are now many, who are beginning to suspect that Parliament —and all Parties are equally responsible —is losing its grip of what is essential and dutiful. This almost unanimous eagerness of members to pass a very faulty Bill in the teeth of friendly but earnest criticism is a symptom of the disease of which another symptom is the readiness of all Parties to remit the legislative function to the Govemor-in-Council.