The Closure in Parliament.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19151, 7 November 1927, Page 8

The Closure in Parliament.

'. When the Prime Minister is asked by the member for Napier whether he wiil appoint a committee to revise the Standing Orders of the House so as „ "to provide for some form of closure " £ ho ought to answer, No. The present Standing Orders, although they impose \ limitations upon speech in the House, "\ are yet generous enough to make it , possible for a minority to obstruct business. Sometimes the obstruction is annoying and unreasonable, as it '" probably will be when and if the Arbitration Bill comes on for discussion, 'but the power of a minority to obstruct is far too valuable to be swept away simply because it is sometimes abused. , If the time of Parliament were very limited, hardly more than sufficient for the transaction of business even by a r diligent House, it might be possible to ' see some virtue in a closure rule which , would save valuable hours. Actually, however, our House of Representatives t wastes time—not hours merely, or days, \ but even weeks —in the most abomin- , able fashion. The most perverse and ' determined minority imaginable could not in any session waste so much time, \ in prolonged and frequent bouts of obstruction, as the House placidly wastes during the first two months of every \ Session. The advocates of a closure rule will probably say that that is not quite the point—that what is desired is some means of preventing a minority from blocking the progress of a Bill. The answer to this is, that if the Government has a Bill that is likely to be obstructed, it should bring it on in July. For many years the Government of the day has brought in bundles of important Bills at the end of the session, and this is so bad a thing that many sober-minded men have thought that obstruction at such a stage would be almost justifiable as a protest against a wrong practice. The Government of the day is always disposed to speak of obstruction as something hardly distinguishable from a crime. Of course it is not a crime at all. No minority can obstruct, to the point of actual frustration, any legislative proposal which has public opinion behind it. If such a proposal is obstructed, the stonewallers very soon realise what they are doing and recognise that with every hour of continued opposition they are doing themselves damage. > On the other hand, when a minority resolves to obstruct a bad Bill that is not supported by the people, its opposition attracts public attention to the Bill, and the supporters of the Bill realise that they will be wise to give in. The Reform Party has in its time rendered good service to the nation by ] using to the full the opportunities for obstruction which are given by the present Standing Orders, and it ought not to destroy a safeguard against legislative bludgeoning that may be as sorely needed in the future as it has sometimes been in the past. The introduction of the elosure would make for the comfort and convenience of the politicians,' but the comfort and convenience of the politicians cannot be considered when the public interest is concerned.