Comment From The Capital

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28939, 6 July 1959, Page 12

Comment From The Capital

[By Our Parliamentary Reporter]

WELLINGTON, July 5. Although reform of Parliamentary procedure continues to be a topic for speakers on both sides of the House, last week proved that principles and practice were strangely at variance. The Address-in-Reply debate, which has been referred to in disparaging terms by Government and Opposition members, showed signs of dragging even in its first week. Members seemed reluctant to raise the usual “parish pump” issues, and as a result, the old arguments of “Who bribed the taxpayers?’’, “Who saved New Zealand from depression?”, and “Who cried ’Wolf’?” were all aired again. But members took their full and often tedious, half-hour, and few corners were cut. Last Tuesday night, when the debate opened, only the mover (Mr N. E. Kirk, Government, Lyttelton) and the seconder (Mr S. A. Whitehead, Government, Nelson) were heard, and the House was up shortly after 9 p.m., having learned little that it did not already know Wednesday’s procedure appeared to be even more timewasting. The usual Wednesday question-time discussion was abandoned, and the House did not sit until the evening, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holyoake) and the deputy Prime Minister (Mr Skinner) were heard. Again the House rose considerably earlier than its usual mid-week time of 10.30 p.m. Thursday and Friday saw an improvement, with 11 and 12 speakers respectively—btit the total for the week has been only 27.

This week, the answers-to-ques-tions period on Wednesday afternoon will again be abandoned to make way for the Address-in-Reply debate, which will carry on tomorrow night, Wednesday afternoon and night, and Thursday afternoon “until terminated." This means that there can be a maximum of 24 more speakers, assuming that every member continues to insist on his full time—a total of 51 for the debate. Temper Of The House

The name-calling for which the House was noted last session began again last Wednesday night. The first word challenged—and it drew quite a commotion from Government members—was “infamous.” It was used by Mr Holyoake, and it was put into his mouth by Mr J. T. Whtts (Opposition, Fendalton).

Mr Holyoake employed it to describe an election-time promise by Mr Nash that the Government would not increase the rates of taxation. On his assurance that it was not intended to apply to Mr Nash personally, the Speaker (Mr Macfarlane) let it pass. There was nothing wrong with his ruling. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary records that “infamous” has been in the language since 1489, and that it means “Of ill fame or repute, notorious for badness of any kind; held in infamy of public disgrace, deserving of infamy, of shameful badness, vileness or abominableness; of a character deserving utter reprobation.” As an indication that neither Mr Watts nor Mr Holyoake thought much of Mr Nash’s promise, the word seems sound enough. It is noteworthy, however, that the Speaker approves it only if used impersonally. The same applies to a later ruling, when an Opposition member expressed a desire for a return to “honesty and integrity in Government.” On the assurance being given that this did not apply personally, the Speaker allowed it to pass. Tempers became frayed again on Thursday afternoon, when Mr W. B. Tennent (Opposition. Manawatu) came perilously close to suspension. Having inferred that Mr Skinner had deliberately given false figures to the House on overseas exchange, Mr Tennent twice refused to withdraw. He declared to the Speaker: “I am not going to withdraw that statement ... 1 will take the consequences of your ruling.” The fact that Mr Tennent was not suspended reflected a great deal of credit on the Speaker for his handling of a delicate situation. The Speaker acted with the right amount of authority, but gave ample opportunity for Mr Tennent to reconsider, which he eventually did. Not all the Interjections were devoid of humour. ■ When Mr Algie referred to the coming Budget as “An Ali Baba Budget,” the Minister of Education (Mr Skoglund) reacted strongly.

“The Minister Is too touchy,” said Mr Algie. "The term ‘Ali Baba’ is commonly used in fun or satire, and its use should not excite a Government member even to shake a fist.”

Mr Algie himself was verbally “floored” later, however, when, in the middle of a speech noted for its brightness and witty sallies, he asked whether he had heard a Government member refer to “Alice in Wonderland.” “No, Algie in Blunderland,” replied Mr J. B. Kent (Government, Westland). For once Mr Algie was left speechless. Later he crossed the House to Mr Kent and shook his hand. It was one of those pleasant touches which, it is hoped, will not be forgotten as the session advances.

Written Questions The written-questions system, whereby a Minister is called upon to produce an answer in writing, to be debated on a Wednesday afternoon, may be regarded as the first casualty of the new session. Already one Wednesday has passed by without this bright and topical debate, and on Friday Mr Nash gave notice that the Address-in-Reply debate would occupy question-and-answer time this Wednesday. Already 34 questions have been asked in writing, all on topical subjects. This number is likely to be doubled by the time the first group of answers is permitted to come before the House.

One of the points of reform mentioned by Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera), and subsequently made the subject of a written question, was the late receipt of written answers. Mr Algie believes that these should be received by members in sufficient time to permit debate preparation, instead of appearing on the desks as the House prepares to consider them.

Some of the current crop of questions are facetious, but most of them are sincere and related to important topics. To attempt to debate 50 or more in a single afternoon would be to stifle a great deal of opinion and argument. Opposition members could claim, with some justification, that they were being denied the traditional right to have their questions considered and their objections heard.