PARLIAMENTARY SESSION

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27642, 26 April 1955, Page 12

PARLIAMENTARY SESSION

Two Lively Debates Expected

ROADS AND POLICE BILLS (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, April 25. Now that the decks have been cleared by the defeat of the Opposition’s no-confidence amendment, both parties in the House of Representa- : fives are preparing for two lively debates. The first will be on the National i Roads Amendment Bill and the second, ’ by far the most interesting in promise, on the Police Force Amendment Bill. The debate on the validation of the appointment of the Minister of Works (Mr W. S. Goosman) as chairman of the National Roads Board—for that is 1 what the National Roads Amendment Bill means in brief—is being welcomed by the Government. Government members feel that the appointment is , completely justified, and they have already rallied the support of outside authoritative bodies, such as the New Zealand Counties’ Association. The main Opposition charge will be that the Government’s policy is inconsistent. Most of the Opposition members will be more anxious to hurry on to the Police Force Amendment Bill. This ! has not yet been introduced, and will go to the bottom of the order paper, preceded by nine bills, none of which contains controversial clauses. . The Police Force Amendment Bill ; will not only validate the appointment .of the Police Commission of three members, but will confirm the agreement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Holland), as interim Minister in charge of Police, with the former chairman of the commission (Mr E. H. Compton) and his legal representative on the financial terms of his resigning his position as commissioner. Whether the Government was too generous in its lump sum payment and went beyond the law in fixing superannuation based on the salary of the commissioner at the date of his resignation will be argued. Issues such as the wisdom of Mr Compton’s appointment in the first place above his superior officers and continued disaffection and discontent within the force will also be debated at length in the House. Long and Delicate Negotiations The negotiations between the Government and Mr Compton and his lawyer were delicate and protracted. The ■ threat of a Court action loomed over the discussions, and the Government will undoubtedly submit, in defence of i the settlemerft, that it might have been required to pay a much greater sum than the settled amount if a Court had held that Mr Compton’s resignation i was obtained illegally. The Opposition has been fortified for the debate by the protest last i week by the Public Service Association against the superannuation rights ; given to Mr Compton, before he was ; legally entitled to them, as the Prime /Minister frankly admitted. As many thousands of superannuitants have been complaining for years that their incomes have been fixed while the costs of living have been rising, generosity at the expense of the Superannuation Fund is likely to be strongly criticised in the debate. The last occasion a compensatory lump payment was made was in 1953. to Judge Stevens, a Deputy Judge of the Court of Arbitration, who was paid £13,000. Address-in-Reply Debate The Address-in-Reply debate, in which all the 19 new members—lo Opposition and nine Government—took part, is generally thought to have shown that the Opposition has the livelier and more effective debating acquisitions. The new blood has revitalised the Opposition but , it remains to be seen whether the . debating strength will be more the Opposition’s way when another set ; debate, such as on the Roads Bill or Police Force Bill, takes place. , Some of the new Government members would prefer to debate one sub- , ject and its angles than to range over the general field of politics, as . is expected of them in an Address- ; in-Reply debate. > For the most part, both the new and the old members of the Government adhered to set speeches, and not until the final stages of the debate was it realised that the Opposition speakers were using damaging material without challenge. That realisation, probably, brought into the debate several Ministers who could more usefully have answered criticism earlier.

The Government party organisation did not appear to be watching the trend of the debate or to be taking any steps to combat effectively the points raised until the Senior Whip, Mr R. G. Gerard (Ashburton), filled a gap with considerable effect. He debated, which few others before him on either side had done. Speaking after one of the Opposition’s most promising men, Mr R. Boord (Rotorua), Mr Gerard described Boord’s speech as one of contradictions, and at machiito-gun speed gave him his reasons for saying so. One Minister who has given due warning to all that he will defend himself vigorously is the Minister of Railways (Mr J. K. McAlpine). He was perhaps a little quick in replying to the criticism of one of his colleagues, Mr Hy R. Lake (Lyttelton), on the delay in completing the plans for the new Christchurch railway station. Mr Lake did not blame the Minister, but the private firm of Wellington architects

Mr Hackett Sets Trap

Among the adroit debaters on the Opposition benches is the former Post-

master-General, Mr F. Hackett (Grey Lynn). He set a neat trap during the discussion on power on Wednesday afternoon, and it snapped to kill. Leaning over his bench, he declaimed: “The Government has been guilty of ineptitude and bungling, and generally making a mess of things electrical. The Government is entirely responsible, and no-one else can be blamed. Having considered and studied the problem from every angle, I believe the situation is in such a mess, due to the Government’s handling of it, or mishandling of it, for which the Minister should accept responsibility, that he should resign and make room for someone who would give better results. This is not the first time the same Minister has been responsible for making a complete mess of things.” The Speaker halted Mr Hackett, and suggested that he was reading his speech. “No, siree,” was the mock-indignant reply of Mr Hackett, who claimed that he had been reading a quotation. He then lifted a volume of Hansard, and read again. “Who said that” came from the Government benches. “Mr Holland, on page 52, Hansard number 276, 1947,” Mr Hackett replied gleefully. When Mr J. G. Edwards (Opposition, Napier), the “baby” of the House, whose mother was in the gallery on Thursday evening, was granted extra time on Friday morning, the House quickly lost interest, and became very noisy with its chatter. Not even Mr Edwards’s charge that the Minister of Education (Mr R. M. Algie) should have served onions with the tripe in his speech succeeded in breaking a conversation Mr Algie was having with another member. Mr Speaker had to inform the House that there was too much talking, besides discourtesy to a new member who was talking on a subject of considerable importance—the salaries of school teachers was the theme of Mr Edwards’s speech at that stage. * ‘lf the member for Napier continues in this vein, he is going to get some interesting experiences, some of which he might not like,” commented the usually tolerant Minister of Defence (Mr T. L. Macdonald). All the signs are that others will have “interesting experiences,” for on both sides of the House opportunities have now been given to appraise“political opponents, their temperaments, and to some extent their capacities.