The Press Thursday, July 11, 1929. A Purposeless Debate.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19668, 11 July 1929, Page 8

The Press Thursday, July 11, 1929. A Purposeless Debate.

Except for the speech made the other day by Mr Coates, the protest by the Leader of the Labour Party against the prolongation of an aimless Ad-dress-in-Rcply debate is the first really useful thing that has been done this session. In the early part of most sessions business is put through with leisurely dignity and private members talk volubly with one eye on their constituencies; indeed in the Legislative Council, where there is no time limit and little to talk about, heroic feats of eloquence are necessary to fill in the slack periods created by the slowness with which Bills trickle through from the Lower House. Then in the last week or two of the session there is a feverish burst of activity and Bills are brought down as fast as the law draughtsmen can prepare them, with the result that the House passes important measures almost in its sleep. It is a truism that all Parliaments are overloaded and that every year more of their authority is surrendered to officials, but while this is mainly due to the growing complexity of the modern State, the pressure could be greatly relieved if the politicians would be reasonably businesslike. The suggestion is often made by people disgusted with Parliamentary methods that the Standing Orders should be amended so as to enable the closure to be applied more easily, but that is neither desirable nor necessary. The power of a minority to obstruct is a valuable safeguard, and in any case minorities do not often obstruct unless they are deeply convinced of the justice of the cause and feel sure that they are supported by a considerable section of the public. But what Mr Holland objects to, and what all reasonable people object to, is a long series of speeches—such as the present Ad-dress-in-Reply debate —about nothing at all. The only excuse for a long debate at the beginning of the session is a provocative " Speech from the " Throne " or a no-confidence amendment to the Address-in-Reply, and at present the House has neither of these excuses. The objection to this waste of time, as we have pointed out year after year, is not that it results in Parliament doing little work, but that it results in Parliament doing important work hastily and carelessly. Nothing is more foolish than to judge Parliament by the volume of its legislation, but we are entitled to demand that Parliament shall be careful about the laws it does in the end pass. Even though laws cannot do much to improve our lot, New Zealand's experience of end-of-session legislation has taught her that bad laws can cause much trouble and expense. If the politician cannot appreciate this point of view, he should at least see that by wasting time he is helping to destroy the effectiveness and the prestige of Parliament.