Co-operation “An Essential Of Good Government”

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29228, 11 June 1960, Page 17

Co-operation “An Essential Of Good Government”

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, June 10.

Though the main purpose of political parties in Parliament in a democratic State was not to co-operate, there was in fact a great deal of co-operation which was not always apparent to the public, said the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition (Mr J. R. Marshall) when he addressed the Wellington branch of the Institute of Public Administration on opportunities and restrictions for co-operative administration in Parliament.

Full administrative co-operation at government level was found only in countries like the Soviet Union, said Mr Marshall. In Western countries, under the type of democracy such as »was found in New Zealand, State administrations recognised the right of minorities to disagree. In most British countries the two-party parliamentary system was favoured, and in New Zealand during the last three years it had been seen how this system maintained stability of government, even though the majority consisted of only one effective vote.

The Government remained in power as long as it enjoyed the confidence of Parliament It was the proper function of the Opposition to watch critically the actions of government and its duty to scrutinise legislation and the spending of public money. It was this aspect of the Parliamentary system that was most often highlighted in radio broadcasts and press reports. Disagreement between parties was news; co-operation was dull and not worthy of full reporting, Mr Marshall said. “In the last Parliament 105 acts were passed, but only about 17 bills were the sdbject of con-

troversial exchanges. The public impression is that Parliament spends most of its time in argument. Actually most of the time is devoted to matters on which there is general agreement.” The result of this was that legislation was generally acceptable and unexceptional. Committee Work The sphere of Parliamentary work that was almost wholly on a co-operative level was committee work. “These committees are not open to the press,” said Mr Marshall. “In many cases I think it would be better if they were.” He was a member of the committee dealing with the Crimes Bill, in which there were 400 clauses. The committee, consisting of members of both sides of the House, would report the bill back on the basis of very substantial agreement. On matters referring to reform of the law. Parliament usually approached them on a non-party, co-operative basis. “I believe we would have better government if we could have non-party voting in Parliament on matters such as licensing.” He added that there was considerable co-operation in the management of the House. There was reasonable “give and take” between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition on matters relating to debates, for instance. Co-operation was a question of spirit rather than rule, and the spirit of co-operation was an essential of good government