Labour has plans to reform Parliament

Press, 21 August 1978, Page 16

Labour has plans to reform Parliament

Rv

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

The fifteen-point reform of Parliament put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) and described by him as “a giant step in the right direction” may be just what New Zealand needs — but there are many who would say that the times are out of joint for its sober and dispassionate evaluation.

The programme was released outside Parliament, at a gathering of the Institute of Public Administration. The accompanying statement opens with ’ the words: “Labour is committed to the restoration of order, openness, decency and relevance in the proceedings of Parliament . ..”

The peroration makes a number of charges. “Parliament has fallen into disrepute. The way in which Parliamentary business is conducted has robbed Parliament of much of its ability to keep a check on Cabinet Ministers, Government departments and Government policies. Parliament lacks the information necessary to question the conduct of Governr ent and the policies developed by Government.”

As a broad statement this would be true, but it becomes increasinly difficult to establish where the line is drawn between increasing the efficiency of Parliament and curbing the power of the Government. As Mr Rowling’s span in Parlia-

ment includes only three years as a member of the Government, it could be that the two concepts of Government and Parliament have become fused into one. The “deterioration” of Parliament is not something which suddenly occurred this election year. To observers who try to be unbiased there has always been name-calling in Parliament. After . the 1972 election, and because of the accession of quite a large number of new, young, noisy and un-housebroken members, we had an increase of noise — of the continuous “yah-yah” type of interjection designed merely to broadcast an atmosphere of dissent.

This has diminished over the last five years, but has not been switched off entirely. The whips could attend to this in a matter of davs, if it were really wanted. The leaders could turn off the back-bench yammer (about which the Speaker has complained many times). No more tian a few blunt words in each caucus by the leaders would suffice. As far as anyone knows, neither Mr Rowling nor Mr Muldoon has troubled to do this.

The “important reforms” which Mr Rowling has enu-

merited have Deen important for. some years — but neither he nor any other member of the Opposition appears to have tried to bring them before either the House or a Select Committee on Procedures and Privilege.

The most notable series of Parliamentary reforms in recent memory were worked out by the late Sir Ronald Algie (oddly enough, after the National Government had been defeated in 1957), and were put into effect in the early 1960’5. There was another extensive change in 1974.

It is noted, however, that these committees tend to make their decisions on matters such as the length of speeches, the handling of questions, and the rights of members to self-expression. The big issues, such as the setting-up of something to replace the revisory capacity of the banished Legislative Council, tend to be skirted or ignored. It has seemed extraordinary to some that no select committee has been in effective existence for the last four years with the specific task of examining aspects of Parliamentary reform. In these times of polarisation and abrasion, the existence of such a com-

mittee, with Messrs Rowling and Muldoon or their chosen representatives as members, plus a body of Parliamentary and legal opinion, might have raised the sights of both main parties above the party-political level.

It is understood that now, with Mr Rowling’s 15-point plan made public, Mr Muldoon has announced his intention of setting up such a body in the Parliamentary recess. With the electioneering of November, the election itself, and the possibility of a major rearrangement of political forces before Christmas, it is unlikely that this committee will settle down to its work before 1979 — but at least it will be a presence, after a five-year vacuum.

Mr Rowling’s idea is for a Parliament of 121 members. His system would call for the briefing of all members by teams of bureaucrats, with everything “open” to Opposition as well as to Government members. Other ideas have considerable merit. Mr Rowling criticised the volume of legislation and regulations being passed into law. His idea is to pass regulations, as well as legislation, through select committees. He seems to have a strong fixation against what he

terms “that cosy little clan called cabinet.” A Rowling-style Parliament would consist of 121 members. I have assumed that this would include the Maori seats, incieased possibly to six to preserve the current balance. This would mean a considerable mcrease from the present membership of 87, and the 92 for which electors will be voting this vear.

Having 121 members, it would be possible for whoever is Prime Minister to see that select committees do not obstruct each other. Today, when each member belongs to several committees, these cannot sit at the same time — or if they do, all members cannot attend. Opposition members have been bitter about this though the system is exactly the same as it was when Labour was the Government.

An odd suggestion, but again one which could have merit, is that Parliament should sit for three days a week, three weeks a month, to a maximum of 10 months a year. Sittings beyond midnight would be banned, and all proceedings would be broadcast. From the Opposition bench this is a first-class proposal, as is anything to curb the present powers of the Prime Minister to operate Parliament as he wants it. But an Opposition must expect some day to become the Government — and a Government and its Prime

Minister would be most un« happy about such extra curbs (not suffered by other Commonwealth Governments). However, the select committees, liberalised as to members, and under the automatic eyes of the media, would have time to get on with their tasks without competing with Parliamentary sittings. They could sit al! through those other days of the week if they wanted to I wonder if they would — any more than they sit on Monday's, Tuesdays, or Friday afternoons now? In a Rowling-style Parliament there would be two new public expenditure committees, one to investigate Government agencies from the public point of view, the other to operate on selected topics. There would be a new Official Secrets Act. a new Freedom erf Information Act, and a mass of special measures. When reading through Mr Rowling’s 15-point plans, and his accompanying comments. the mind tends to ask questions (rather than simply to boggle): Why is this mass of reform put out in one timed Why, in its three years of Government, did Labour choose not to implement even one of its proposals (remembering that it had a 55-32 majority)? Why, if these things were not important in the years 1972-75, are they of such importance now?

Comment from the Capital