COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL PAIRS—SENSIBLE POLICY OR POLITICAL WEAPON?

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32461, 23 November 1970, Page 14

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL PAIRS—SENSIBLE POLICY OR POLITICAL WEAPON?

(By

C. R. MENTIPLAY.

our Parliamentary reporter)

WELLINGTON, November 22—The Battle of the Pairs continued to occupy Parliament last week, both inside and outside the House, while both Chief Whips wondered whether at any time the simple arrangement of the granting and withholding of pairs would be torn from their hands by a higher authority.

After declaring during his valedictory speech at the end of the 1969 session that the granting of pairs was “a sensible policy, and should continue in the future,” the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) advised c the Acting Prune Minister (Mr Shelton) that the Opposition was consider- G a^ jn ?J >^ rs to P revent th e passage of the Local Authorities (Petroleum Tax) Bill.

The granting of pairs is defined by Sir Erskine May in his standard work on Parliamentary practice as “A practice, similar in effect to that of voting by proxy, which has for many years been resorted to by both Houses. The system enables a

Member to absent himself and to agree with another Member that he also shall be absent at the same time. By this mutual agreement a vote is neutralised on each side of a question, and the relative numbers in the division are exactly the same as if both Members were present .. .” An interesting point is that there is no formal recognition of the practice. Arrangements about pairs can be conducted privately or by the Whips of the respective parties, as was indicated in last week’s article. No obligation In this country, as in Britain, arrangements about pairs are honoured to the letter—or have been so far. Neither side, however, has any obligation to grant pairs. In 1946 Labour had a majority of four, and in 1957 Labour resumed the Treasury benches with a majority of two, including the Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holyoake) then defined the attitude of the National Opposition: “I would like to say publicly to the Prime Minister than on all occasions when it can be demonstrated that a Minister or private member is away on urgent public business, we will give a pair . . . Occasionally it happens that the House sends a private member overseas on some kind of urgent public business—but whether it is urgent public business overseas or within the country we would grant a pair ... That course will also be followed when the Government asks for pairs where it cannot be demonstrated that there is a case of genuine illness .” Charge by Minister On July 19, 1960, the late Mr F. Hackett, then Minister of Labour, charged the Opposition with refusing to consent to pairs. He claimed that as a result there were “four men who should be in their beds.” At this time a controversial Bill was before the House (The Police Offences Amendment Bill), and Mr Holyoake had declared his intention of using every form of the House to frustrate it. Mr Hackett said that the Minister of Works, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Railways were just recovering from influenza, while “the Minister of Internal Affairs is at the moment lying down in the lobby suffering from advanced influenza,” and the member for Northern Maori (the late Mr T. P. Paikea) has been forced to come on

i crutches because of ulcerated rflegs.” Later in that debate the Government Senior Whip (Mr 1 May) admitted that there had > been no refusal to grant pairs. Today the Senior Government Whip (Mr H. R. Lapwood) has a listing of 1 every pair granted during the i Labour Government’s three-

year term. There are several examples on that list of where seven pairs were asked for by the Labour Government, and granted by the Opposition. (Mr May has evidence of as many as nine pairs asked for this year by the present Government). Despite threats that the present system will be superceded, the Whips are hoping that the matter will be left in their hands, as a better method of treating each application on its merits. “The best guarantee we have of this, surely, were the words of Mr Kirk himself when the House broke up for last year’s General Election,” Mr Lapwood told me. “Should continue” hi that speach, Mr Kirk said: “It is a matter of pride to me as Leader of the Opposition during the three years since last election that we have never once refused pairs to the Government. It is a policy we deliberately introduced, and one we intend to continue. “However, I do not think the New Zealand electorate or the New Zealand Parliament today would seriously accept the view that a dose of influenza or some similar indisposition, or some trick or intransigence on the part of the Opposition should mean the fall of the Government. “On the other hand, if at a division Government members join with the Opposition, or if there is an obvious rejection of Government policies by members of its own party on some constitutionally important issue, that is another matter. ■‘lt would be wrong to suggest that the Government should fall because somebody is ill and cannot vote. By the same token. Ministers have to be absent on. urgent public business and they should be entitled to attend to that business. Therefore we think

this is a commonsense procedure—and I am proud that, this party has never refused pairs.” U Early last week it was announced that things would be as they had been, with pairs to be granted to give the Government a majority r ( of one. It is an uneasy truce, however.

Charges have been made that certain members notably Mr Muldoon—-are'' being discriminated against in the granting of pairs. There is some doubt also that Mr Kirk meant precisely what he was reported as saying on the West Coast But from day to sessional day, nobody is sure that the guillotine on the pairs system will not suddenly fall.