The week in the House

Press, 26 May 1979, Page 2

The week in the House

Firm hand needed in rowdy Chamber

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

At the end of its first working week of the 1979 session, Parliament showed no signs of the “improved conduct” referred to by so many members during last year’s election campaign. Schedules are falling behind, pointless argument is increasing, and points of order are being called without relevance or apparent intent to improve matters. The Speaker (Mr Harrison) has adopted an attitude of forbearance which is now wearing thin. Close examination of House conduct reveals that both main parties are guilty. Yesterday small cliques of backbenchers were making audible remarks even when Mr Speaker rose, and apparently were treating his efforts to calm the House as a subject for levity.

The Whips of both sides have a responsibility to chide younger members whose conduct could bring the parties into disrepute. This could also be done by the party leaders. In its absence there have been interjections and laughter when either the Speaker or the House Leader (Mr Thomson) have been on their feet, maiden speeches have been made the subject of ribald interjection, and generally the House atmosphere is degenerating into rowdyism.

The week has not been a difficult one. The Address-in-Reply debate has dominated proceedings. By the time Parliament rose yesterday afternoon, 21 members had spoken in the debate. The speeches were of varying quality. Most of those who spoke could not refrain from mentioning the Supreme Court judgment on the Hunua seat. Regrettably,! there was some criticism of the judges’ decision, and not a little bitterness. We can expect that the Opposition will now accord Messrs B. E. Brill (Kapiti) and W

Peters (Hunua) a special status. In the last few minutes of the Parliamentary week, Mr M. F. Courtney (Lab., Nelson) extended his congratulations to all newlyelected members “with the exception of the two courtappointed members.” Surprisingly, this passed unchallenged. Perhaps the National members were thinking of other things such as lunchtime.

It is a pity that so many references to the Hunua judgment were made in Parliament. In other Parliaments. the respective party leaders might well have banned reference to a subject so close to home. As it is, we are assured of a debate on the Hunua verdict, at the end of the Address-in-Reply debate or sooner.

As if this were not enough, we had to listen to no fewer than two “maiden” speeches by Mr M. Douglas, followed by what looked like a stage-managed “ceremonial ejection.” Surely this could have been done in a more discreet way — perhaps if more discretion existed in the no-man’s-land between our party-political battlelines.

Everyone knew that the court-directed recount would most likely result in Mr Douglas’s deposition. But did we have to have Mr Peters’s last-minute flight from Auckland, the confrontation, and the departure of Mr Douglas, with brother-sup-port? Local television soap opera at its worst could surely do better than this. Or was it set up by a moonlighting television scriptwriter?

, We still have the joys ofi the Hunua debate ahead, ; though the National Party’s; . president (Mr G. A. Chap-! man) has assured us that no I more results may be challenged. Mr Brill has ex-1

plained in the House that he was misquoted in his references to marginal Kapiti voters, and Hansard supports him. But it is to be hoped that the party leaders ban further attacks on the Judiciary'. A judgment, once made, must be accepted — unless Parliament proposes to set itself above our independent Judiciary. It is time some supreme authority defined just how far party politics can go. In the coming week, the Address-in-Reply debate will be continued. Members’ notices of motion will be debated on Wednesday and local bills on Thursday, j There is legislation ready to i be proceeded with, but it I will be some weeks before! this can be done.