The week in the House Matters of little moment

Press, 29 July 1978, Page 2

The week in the House Matters of little moment

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

Again this week Parliament seemed content to waste its substance on minor issues, as expressed in notices of motion and back-benchers’ private legislation, instead of pressing on with matters of moment and legislation ready for debate. The Order Paper remains light, and much of the legislation ready for discussion could be passed quite quickly, if the will were there. But this week again tim® continued to be wasted on items that were eventually closed off without even the satisfaction of a formal vote.

When a private member, whatever side he is on, brings in a bill without Government support, he knows full well that it may be terminated at the introduction stage, simply on the ruling that it would require an appropriation of funds which he has no power to provide. In recent years the habit has grown up of allowing such legislation to "live” until a second-reading debate has been, completed.

In the interests of open government, this may be sound. Discussion is heard and broadcast for the common information — but it is also true that the increas-ingly-expensive time of the house is being wasted to no valid Parliamentary purpose. For the last few weeks it has also been demonstrated that private members’ bills may be used as vehicles in another political area.

The Labour Opposition has pursued an unpredictable course in the House. Sometimes it has shown interest in speeding the debate and embarrassing the Government thereby. On other occasions it has dawdled, quite unpredictably, between the goals. The Community Service Bill (Mr D. F. Quigley) and the Hospitals Amendment Bill (Mr J. G. O’Brien) each received its courtesy secondreading debate before being “axed.” Among others Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab., Christchurch Centra!) occupied the whole of Friday morning in a discussion which was more party-politics and points-of-order than anything else.

These are notable exer-| cises in free speech ,fon members — but other facts are relevant. Since the last rearrangement of Parliamefitary hours, much of the f o u r-day Parliamentary week, consisting of precious (and expensive) time, has been lost in debate which did not end in a vote. Sooner or later a decision will have to be made returning Parliament to its original role of a legislative chamber. It has never been happy in its present guise as a sounding-board for partypolitical opinion. Friday morning was lost to legislation when the House took two hours to re ject Mr Barclay’s Meat Export Control Amendment

■ | Bill. It was after noon when tithe House finally reached ; presentation of select comt mittee reports — and Parlia- • ment rose at 1 p.m. ! There is a further cram- ' ped feeling about the restric--1 tion of committee-work. Select committees are not per- • mitted to sit while Parliament is sitting, but how im1 portant is Parliament’s work ■ nowadays? Very soon now, Parliament is likely to vote • itself a short “working ’ recess” in order to allow the 1 public expenditure committee to get on with its task of examining the Estimates. Better handling of the over-all Parliamentary task . may well have obviated this.