The Press MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1974. 34-hour sitting was not justified

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33610, 12 August 1974, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1974. 34-hour sitting was not justified

Neither side of the House can take much credit from the 34-hour sitting of Parliament which began on Friday afternoon and finally adjourned shortly after midnight on Saturday. Perhaps the Opposition scored a points decision; even though they lost every division, they did at least succeed in keeping up the pressure—and they withstood the pace—from a pool of 19 fewer members than the Government. Once the Prime Minister (Mr Kirk) proposed that the House treat the Superannuation Bill as a matter of urgency, the Opposition would have been failing the country if it had not mounted a sustained attack on the question of urgency and on the bill itself. The Opposition has already made public its hostility to the Superannuation Bill. Indeed, the Prime Minister gave as his reason for the extended sitting the slow progress that was being made in ordinary debate—only six clauses out of 97 had been passed in seven hours and a half. The Opposition could not let the rest of the bill pass by default The Superannuation Bill is the most important measure to come forward since the Government took office nearly two years ago; it might turn out to be the most far-reaching piece of legislation since the social welfare acts of the late 19305. But it is not an urgent matter. Many opponents of the bill might have preferred to see it considered more extensively while it was before a committee of the House. Instead, the Minister of Finance (Mr Rowling) has attempted to keep to a tight time-table so that the bill can come into effect by his arbitrary deadline of April 1, 1975. This was the last opportunity for an extended public debate before the bill is passed. It is far from satisfactory that the debate should have taken place in an exhausting atmosphere in which the standard of argument from both sides must have suffered, and in which the public gave more attention to the form of the debate than to the content As Leader of the Opposition, and again last year, as Prime Minister, Mr Kirk has expressed his opposition to long sittings of the House, to legislation by exhaustion. That opposition should have been doubly justified when the measure was not a matter of national urgency. The Labour Party’s manifesto less than two years ago spoke of spreading the work of Parliament “ to “eliminate the pressures that build up towards the “end of sessions and also (to) enable more careful “consideration of legislation”. On this occasion, the Government cannot even claim that the end of the session is near or that there is an unusually large backlog of legislation awaiting attention. The whole performance looks like the result of unseemly pique on both sides of the House, begun by the Government’s claiming urgency where none was needed. Thirty-three clauses of the bill remain to be considered. The Opposition will, no doubt, keep up the pressure when the debate resumes, probably tomorrow. Something might be done to redeem the reputation of Parliament, and to allow more reasoned public airing of the arguments for and against the remaining clauses, if the Government ensures that no further all-night sittings are held. A day or two extra of Parliament’s time would be a small enough tribute to the magnitude of the legislation in question. The bill is not going to be stopped: it might well be repealed late next year if the National Party wins the election. That election campaign will, in part, be fought on the superannuation measures. An adequate airing of the arguments now—at civilised hours—will help the electors to make up their minds about the qualities of the measures when the time comes. That, surely, is the justification for the process of debate in Parliament.