AN ABLE SURVEY OF parliament at work

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27404, 17 July 1954, Page 3

AN ABLE SURVEY OF parliament at work

Government and Parliament. By Herbert Morrison. Geoffrey Cumberlego and the Oxford University press. 363 pp. "What on paper appear to be the came institutions can work very dif- . ferently in different countries," says Mr Herbert Morrison in his preface “Most of ours work as they do because that is how we feel they ought to work." This attitude is not further discussed, yet is implicit in every chapter Of a singularly informative book on just how the institutions of central ■ government do work in the United gngdom. Mr Morrison writes with authority. He was a member of the i Bamsay MacDonald, war-time Churchill, and Attlee Governments and is recognised as a brilliant party ' manager. The Parliament of New Zealand is said to follow more closely some of ' the ancient forms than the Imperial parliament, but our institutions do not always work with quite the same regard for the spirit behind them For example, the House of Commons adheres firmly to the old rule that Supply days are Opposition time and that the Opposition decides what is to be discussed on them. “It can be somewhat hard on ministerial supporters when they are asking for subjects to be debated which would be appropriate for Supply days," Mr Morrison comments. “I was more than once asked that the Government or its supporters should have a voice in the selection of subjects on such occasions I advised my friends to see what they could do to persuade the Opposition ■ but adhered to the view that Opposi- ■ tion time was sacred to the “ Opposition.” Mr Morrison would be interested by an incident in the New Zealand House of Representatives m 1944. The Opposition had planned to use a Supply debate to discuss several topical matters ; particularly the .Emergency Regulations. They were thrown out of their stride when the Minister of Finance (Mr Walter Nash), without warning to anyone, not even the Leader of the House (Mr Peter Fraser), took advantage of the procedure to open proceedings with a long speech on LendLease. Mr Nash’s course was surprising, but less so than the docility with which it was accepted. The only objection raised inside the House or outside it was the protest by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland) that he had not been advised that Lend-Lease was to be discussed so that he could prepare for it. No-one seemed to realise that a fundamental right of the Opposition had been breached. “How Government and Parliament live together—or die” is the heading of one of Mr Morrison’s chapters. Does it not hint at a rather different view on the way these Institutions should work? Parliament is not a board table, the annual meeting of a company, or a broadcasting studio for the announcement of party decisions. In part, the difference in New Zealand is that this is a small country with only 80 legislators. Proportionately the number of back-benchers is low, and there is some lack of back-bench liveliness. because every back-bencher has roughly an even chance of getting to the front bench if he stays long enough in Parliament and keeps in with his party. Governments live closer to their caucuses. Another difference is that members of Parliament have not yet really adjusted themselves to broadcasting. English reviewers of Mr Morrison’s book have drawm attention to the firm

fnd Srof e tS er r C ‘ s h ed ov “ the rank which he descrih»^? boUr Government, Zealand reade??Sii n „ sol ? e detail. New opposite vi “ 7 eel i P ne ob^ ly , “£ e - the Parties are relatively th > at • Britlsh discipline On thX *1 ln their land h “T ? ot heard New parties When the Political HonX t greed to wipe out the Upper House here. The United Kingdom

Parliament also has the advantage of close and direct association with the Sovereign, who retains “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn.” This advantage is greater, perhaps, than New Zealanders realise. Whatever the reasons, Mr Morrison’s account suggests that Parliamentary institutions work better in the United Kingdom than they do in New Zealand, and probably retain a greater measure of public respect. For that reason alone, and there are others, it may be hoped that this book is read widely in New Zealand, by electors as well as by politicians. Constitutional writers have described in great detail the British constitution, but no recent authority has dealt with it from the inside, as Mr Morrison is able to do. He shows how the British Cabinet is able to cope with the mass of great decisions and still leave Ministers time for their departmental administration, although the individual burden is still a heavy one. He explains the organisation and value of Cabinet committees and of committees of Parliament. One useful chapter describes how Mr Morrison as Leader of the House planned the legislative programme to avoid last-minute rushes and the dropping of desirable legislation. It could be read with profit in New Zealand. This is not a theoretical discussion of the constitution, but a practical examination of the way it really works. Mr Morrison, of course, does not try to conceal his political convictions, but he deals with the machinery of government with an objectivity that matches his confident style.