THE WEEK IN THE HOUSE Criticisms, but talk drags on

Press, 14 August 1976, Page 2

THE WEEK IN THE HOUSE Criticisms, but talk drags on

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

( Although this week; has been one of progres-l sion through the Budget! ( debate, a querulous note I has been maintained ■ about the type of conItrol exercised by the) 'Speaker (Sir Roy Jack). This reached a peak when (Mr J. L. Hunt (Lab, New ’Lynn) made comments on a radio programme that Sir , Roy’s method of control 1 could have been firmer. Thei (matter was raised in thei j House by the Deputy Prime! (Minister (Mr Taiboys), and) subsequently the Deputy! ( Speaker (Mr J. R. Harrison)) found that a case existed for’ la breach of privilege. This means that for the I fifth time this session a I member has had to appear I before the Privileges Committee. ! So far, no case has been (proven, and no penalty has ; been imposed — but the (whole pattern of events has! i indicated a clash of personalities probably unprecedented in New Zealand Pari liaments. I The rules are quite firm |on the powers enjoyed by I the office of Speaker. Any] (criticism of the exercise or (non-exercise of those powers) is unacceptable. It is noted 1

[that one notice of motio I critical of the Speaker ha i failed to appear on the Order Paper, although other relating to the conduct o the House remain. One such notice, move l (by Mr T. J. Young (Lab I Hutt), cites the public ques tions committee of the Bap tist Church as appealing ti members of Parliament ti show more respect for th< dignity of the House —“am trusts that the unruly beha viour of the member fo [ South Canterbury (Mr R. L iG. Talbot), in rising to hi: ’feet, shouting and pointin; i across the floor of the Housi iin defiance of good conduc I and of standing orders whili i another member is speaking will not be repeated by am member.” Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab Christchurch Central) ha tabled a notice of motioi “that in view of >standin; order 99; which requires M Speaker to determine th< acceptability or otherwise o private members’ notices o motion, in future, to avoir confusion in the House, thi: responsibility’ should be as sumed by Mr Speaker him self.” ■ There are others, iiicludin; a lone one by Mr P. B Reweti (Lab., Eastern Maori) which calls attention to the “multiplicity and shallow

Hness” of matters so far referred to the Privileges j Committee this session, and ;| doubts that any dramatic ac--1 tion will be taken. It suggests that, the committee I should take no further ac- , tion, “but instead turn its attention to recommending a suitable procedure for re- , viewing the practice and , procedure of Parliamentary ; privilege, so as to provide I no more but no less protection than is reasonably required to meet the needs of modern representative government.” Concentrating on dis- : posing of the Budget debate has meant the virtual stoppage of legislation in the ’ meantime. The two customs measures had the usual heavy introductory treatment, but the Opposition was plainly asking questions simply to elicit answers. It was somewhat surprising ; that although the Minister of Customs (Mr Wilkinson) introduced the Customs Amendment Bill on Thursday, the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) was on hand to answer the questions. I presume there is ample precedent for this — and certainly a New' Zealand Prime Minister is in ultimate charge of all portfolios, but there are those who would regard it as a discourtesy to the minister concerned. Mr Wilkinson seemed in firm control of the measure and when he did speak later, in answer to other questions, his reply was clear and unequivocal. If Mr Muldoon was “helping out” a new Minister, there was no indication that Mr Wilkinson needed any such assistance. Sir Roy Jack’s low-profile speakership continued to manifest itself during oral question-time. This week, on Thursday and Friday, the House came within an ace of completing its oral question-and-answ'er within the designated period. ; That it did not do so was due ; to two factors — Opposition (

members continued to ask questions long past a time which could be considered reasonable, and the Speaker continued to permit them to do so. As a result, questions on the operation of. the National Superannuation Scheme were extended into what sounded like a full second-reading debate. Mr M. A. Connelly had asked three successive questions on this subject. On one of them he asked no fewer than seven supplementary questions. It was not surprising that time ran out.