POLITICAL OBITER DICTA

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 21035, 11 December 1933, Page 7

POLITICAL OBITER DICTA

TO TUB EOITOII OV THE TRESS. Sir,—xiv; sands are running out in ti!f - «!r.ss ;:;r ih- present session of Parliament, and whatever opposition — - .\liich is m<;:-i i,lien tantamount to futile, dog-in-the-manger obstruction ~~' i!i bciiv; :.hnwn is no more than a

pretentious gesture to support the delusion; sedulously cultivated, that our Parliamentarians, faithful watchdogs lor the public interest, are keeping watch and ward, quite regardless of the call to holiday which is already sounding throughout the land. It is a significant commentary on parliamentary methods that millions are being voted nem con _ without discussion, while perfectly trivial matters are even still being discussed at inordinate length, and perfectly trifling measures are being discussed at length. No successful business in the world is so conducted. The pointed criticism of the Audi-tor-General on Parliament's loose control of public expenditure supports these observations. He has discharged ms duty. Will Parliament see to its duty and rcassume the control of pubtic expenditure in an intelligent and busiriess-liko manner? One may doubt it. One may continue to doubt it while the House is used as persistently as at present as a sounding board lor political propaganda. Unless Parliament sets to reform itself the business will socn be taken out of its hands. The voting. 011 Mr Healy's Gaming ±>lll ?s a further illustration of the manner in which public interest is made secondary to personal pique or party predilection. Here was a measure which either was or was not ior the public interest. Mr Healy claims that the House, by a majority of 10, was in favour of the measure. -Lnese members believed it was in the public interest. Clearly their duty was to vote for the measure, but because Mr Forbes had done something quite unconnected with the measure, of which they did not approve, they voted against his proposal for urgency, which, if carried, might have resulted in the passing of the bill. Mr Forbes's proposal was therefore defeated. The public interest was defeated in order to flatter the amour Pro pre of members and score oil Mr Forbes. Who can possibly justify such a cynical course of action bv men who eternally declare that in all their actions they are guided by high principle' There is l=o much of make-believe about Parliament that the marvel is that it has stood so long, but it is quite certain that in the new world which is being born before our eyes it must mend its ways if it is to persist, or be swept away to make wav for an efileient body which will discharge business in the way and by the methods sensible business de'maiuls, and cease being what Disraeli called an "organised hypocrisy " eternally prating of public interest while all tiu; time giving first places to other interests of a party or personal character.—Yours, etc., S.M. December 10, 1933.