Comment From The Capital SIX YEARS OF STREAMLINING HAVE NOT GIVEN THE ANSWER

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31114, 18 July 1966, Page 10

Comment From The Capital SIX YEARS OF STREAMLINING HAVE NOT GIVEN THE ANSWER

(From Our Own Reporterj

WELLINGTON, July 17. Some impatience with the forms and procedures of Parliament has been both sides of the House during HdvSS)*hS establiTlw^a 6 Select Committee of 11 members to examine “e y S C »tiJn S « e nd,Srt. This eonunitt-. will have its m«W during the Parliamentary recess and is not required to make its repoit until the next Parliament is called together.

Unfortunately, the present Speaker (Sir Ronald Algie) will not be a member of the committee. He is regarded as the architect of the so-called “streamlined” system now under investigation; and to a certain extent the efficiency' of his recommendations will be challenged. He is not available for the committee, mainly because he has signified his intention of retiring in November. Apart from this. Sir Ronald Algie has always regarded the “streamlined” system as no more than a step towards a more com-mon-sense way of doing things. There have been no complaints about the basic changes, which meant shorter speeches in the main debates, a relaxation of procedural forms, and a general modernisation of procedures handed down from the mother of parliaments. the House of Commons. The main criticism of the present procedure is that it introduced new opportunities for parties and private members to debate, without first making clear how these should be used. The new system is weak at several points: the half-hour adjournment debate, derisively called “Hancock’s Halfhour”; the use of the oral question period, and especially the use of supplementary questions; afid the rules covering the presentation and discussion of notices of motion. Improvement The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) recently voiced his dissatisfaction with the form taken by the adjourn ment debate, and Indicated that the Opposition intended to handle it in a manner more closely allied to procedure in the House of Commons. The first of the new-style adjournment debates occurred last Thursday night. It gave more scope for private members to bring forward smaller but more personal issues, and was generally well accepted. Previously, the adjournment debate has degenerated into a set-piece argument between chosen speakers on a general issue, each speaker having five minutes. As such, it tended to be indistinguishable from any other debate. If Opposition members adhere to last Thursday’s pattern (and to the advice of their leader), the adjournment debate will have recovered its effectiveness without requiring any alteration by the Select Committee. Mr Kirk’s advice was simply that this debate should be reserved

I for private members and the smaller, often sectional or ter--1 ritorial, questions. Thus issues which concerned many persons might be aired, and answers obtained from the relevant Ministers.

The only problem now seems to be whether the resuscitated adjournment debate will begin to look like a sort of after-hours extension of question time. The solution to this, as to the whole matter of the adjournment debate, remains in the Opposition's hands. Absence One aspect of the "streamlined” procedure, in which possibly the rights of the public have been forgotten, is that relating to absent members. Before the new procedure was adopted, the party whips had to ask the House publicly to accord “leave of absence” to members. The grounds were always given, such as illness, a bereavement, or urgent public business, and the whole business took a few minutes each day. Sir Ronald Algie's new procedure amended this. Leave of absence is granted now by the Speaker. There is never any mention of absent members in the House: and the House itself is not called upon to grant leave. If a member of the press gallery, for instance, notices an empty bench, he cannot readily ascertain why the member concerned is not pre-

isent. He may ask one of the whips; but the whip is not bound to tell him. An inquiry from the Legislative Department staff reveals that such information is in no way public. How important is this? It should be of importance to an elector to know whether his member is actively in the House. It could also be of assistance, at times of parti-ally-manned benches, to know which of the absent members has a legitimate excuse. The Select Committee could well examine this. If it is not desired to re-establish the old system, the list of permitted absentees could at least be published on the daily Order Paper. Illness Two members of the Opposition spent most of last week in hospital. Another, Mr P. Blanchfield (Westland) has not been seen for some time, but is known to be recovering from serious illness. Sir Basil Arthur (Timaru) has been troubled by a recurrence of a virus disease which he is believed to have picked up when in Korea. A forceful speaker for the South, he has been missed; but he is expected to return soon. Mr M. Moohan (Petone) has suffered from bronchial trouble, and recently lost his voice when asking a question in the House. It is understood that he may require surgery for goitre.