The week in the House Appropriation under urgency

Press, 7 August 1976, Page 2

The week in the House Appropriation under urgency

By CEDRIC MENTIPLAY i Though locked in its apparent strait jacket of . procedure and privilege., this i Parliamentary sessior continues to produce surprises. This week was to have Ibeen a quiet one, dedicaied to the launching of the Budget debate (the second-read-ing debate on the Appropriation Bill) by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) and the peaceful promotion of the business of the House. Instead, it proved to be I turbulent, heated, and totally i without the common ground ion which other opposing : parties, in Parliaments of other days, contrived to ! press on with business while , expressing their views — land so we had urgency, late sittings, inflammatory interjections, and a quite frustrating throwing-away of the I often-informative oral question period. Mr Rowling’s Budget I speech was given in his new style — forthright, outspoken, and far-removed from his usual method of address. He kept on calling Mr Muldoon’s effort a “blun-■der-Budget,” and added phrases such as ”42 pages of fiddle from a Minister of Finance who talked big and thought small.” Mr Rowling spoke for almost an hour, and spent a lot of it lashing out at Mr Muldoon. One of his predictions was that Mr Muldoon was likely to produce another mini-budget before the end of the year. One could appreciate Mr Rowlings’ difficulty in dealing with a Budget such as this one. No matter what one thinks of it, the multiplicity of apparently small “tuning” moves make it hard to criticise in generalties, and to get down to the “fine print” would cause a party leader to lose objectivity. It seemed somewhat irrelevant, however, for Mr Rowling to leave Budget measures for a diatribe on the Govenment’s sports policy and Olympic happenings. The Government’s leader in the debate, Mr L. R. Adams-Schneider, replied almost in kind. His theme was that the Labour Government had been responsible for the economic situation, that the Budget was a step to restore health to an economy left ailing by Labour, and that Mr Rowling was

[the man most responsible for “leading New Zealand into an economic quagmire.” The Budget debate has, or had, a treasured place in our [way of life, but I doubt [whether anyone listening to [these two speakers on the (first night would look forward to the prospect of staying tuned to Parliament for other speakers over the ensuing fortnight. WILL IO OPPOSE During the daylight sittings, the battle broke up (into minor engagements on [women’s rights, abortion centres, the Olympics again, and more about nuclear warships. For some reason yet to be explained, all Labour members seem to be committed to impede the flow of House business. Every new measure, even those with which Labour has no real disagreement, seems doomed to be debated until the last permitted second. Mr Prebble’s Nuclear-free Zone (New Zealand) Bill was in a different category. As a private member’s measure, clearly requiring a nonexistent appropriation, it had no chance of adoption; and added to this was the fact that it was diametrically opposed to announced Government policy. In other days, the Speaker would have rejected it out of hand. Previous Speakers did this, to the generation of some immediate heat, perhaps, but to the saving of considerable time. About a decade ago, however, when Parliament assembled early in the year and had little in the way of legislation before it, the habit arose of accepting Opposition private members’ measures, and of debating them to the secondreading stage. This is a partial background to the action taken by the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) to take urgency on matters including the Budget! debate. His motive was simply expressed: he described lack of progress because of Opposition action, and specifically because the Opposition had broken an agreement between Whips. URGENCY The point as to whether urgency has been taken before so early in a Parliamentary session, and more particularly on the third day of the Budget debate is irrelevant. A Prime Minister

(has power to do this, if in' (his view the business of the iHouse is being deliberately’ [impeded. [ The original division was; ■ carried by the Government,! [46-26. Predictably. Mr Rowlj ing was quickly on his feet [with a protest against what he alleged was an abrogation ;of the rights of private metn[bers. But urgency was imI posed — and the House sat (until Mr Muldoon was pre--1 pared to let it rise, which turned out to be just before midnight on Thursday. This touch of Prime Minis-[ terial power had no apparent: effect, however. Parliament' began as usual at 9 a.m. yes-j 'terday with nothing to do but; I attend to formal business, [accept two Government measures against which there [was no real argument, allow [Mr Prebble’s measure to be introduced for its established second-reading debate, and listen to Budget debate speeches until the usual Friday rising-time. it was not to be. Opposi-; tion members started glee-; fully to oppose the Waitangi; Day Bill (on which officially; there was no disagreement) and extended it into a full! second-reading debate on Waitangi history. It took al-; most two hours, and a d’vi-[ sion, won by the Government. 47-28. before the measure was read a first time. Mr Muldoon wasted no time in moving urgency again —on the introduction of the Gaming Duties Amendment Bill, the rest of the formal business (including the introduction of Mr Prebble’s bill). His reason: time-wast'ng by the Opposition. Just as quickly, Mr Rowling was on his feet to protect what he called “the rights of members.” The Government carried the inevitable division. 47-28, and the House belatedly went back to work. It is a continuing Opposi-! tion complaint thrat broad-i casting nours remain the; same, even though Parliamentary hours are extended.: Therefore, they contend, the! listening public missed an’ hour and 23 minutes of dis-' cussion on Thursday evening.: plus all of yesterday’s debate! time after 1 p.m. To this, some cynics may suggest that “the public” would not be listening anyway; and others, that the Opposition has brought it on; itself.