The Press TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1953. A Rambling Debate

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27151, 22 September 1953, Page 8

The Press TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1953. A Rambling Debate

Most electors will agree with Mr Freer, the Oppositign member for Mount Albert, that the House of Representatives usually prolongs its debate on the Budget beyond all reason. Mr Freer gave examples of the very much shorter times legislatures in other British countries think adequate to debate the financial statement, including three or four days in the House of Commons. He could have given numerous examples of relatively concise Budget debates in New Zealand Parliamentary history. Examination of the New Zealand Budget used to take a fortnight, or perhaps run into three weeks, while it now takes four weeks and may run into a fifth. The longer time is necessary if a majority of members exercise their right to speak for an hour, and the more important of them wish to do so in the evening. The changed attitude seems to date from, as it is probably a result of, the introduction of Parliamentary broadcasts. These broadcasts have served a valuable purpose in .bringing Parliament close to the homes of the people, but they have had the unfortunate consequence, though not an inevitable one, of often leading to the subordination of Parliamentary business to the supposed interests of members as radio speakers. It would be difficult to contend that the Budget debate is now really an examination of the Governments financial policy. Some members on both sides do stick strictly to the point. Others, sometimes a majority, use the extremely wide latitude of the standing orders and Parliamentary custom to talk about almost everything but the Budget. The result is a rambling and disjointed discussion, growing tedious to the point where speeches that might be refreshing in themselves appear as stale as the debate itself. Members already have the Address-in-Reply debate in which they can use the broadcasting facilities to speak on general lines to their constituents. On the Estimates, the consideration of departmental reports, Ministers’ replies to questions, and other occasions they have ample opportunity to speak on specific matters on which they may have something useful to say. If they used these opportunities their contributions would make more sense than they do in a confused mixture. Surely this would serve their own interests, as well as help the public to understand not only the national finances but also other questions of national administration. An amendment of the standing orders to reduce the limit on Budget speeches to the halfhour of other important debates (which the House extends for leading speakers) would help a little. Even then, however, the debate could last a fortnight or more and would probably be as disjointed as it is now. The proper remedy is for the party whips and members generally to agree on a reasonable duration for the debate, which would give time for half a dozen speakers from each side to make the financial issues clear to the electors. Other members could have their turn when they were able to speak without falling into either repetition or irrelevance.