The Dominion MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1927. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 7, 3 October 1927, Page 8

The Dominion MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1927. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and the “rulings” (or interpretations) on them by Speakers govern the whole procedure of the House. It is a common-sense proposition, therefore, that they should be kept up to date, for even Parliamentary methods call in course of time for alteration to suit altered conditions. Yet such a long period as nearly thirty years has elapsed since the last thorough revision. The Orders themselves are now in an unsatisfactory state, and the “rulings on points that often crop up arc,, as Sir Charles Statham has more than once stated, very conflicting. Early last session attention was called to this matter and a scheme outlined by which the work of revision could be done in the recess with a minimum of inconvenience to members of the Recess Committee and a thoroughness not obtainable m any other way. Probably, because of Mr. Coates’s early departure for the Imperial Conference, no action was taken. And so far as the first part of the then coming recess was concerned this would be a sound reason. For a Prime Ministers close association with the work of revision is quite indispensable. The scheme suggested by us was, and is, that the present Standing Orders Committee should be appointed as a Recess Committee as in 1924. That early in 1928, the Speaker should invite its members to Send him, say, within a month, full details of. the amendments, recessions, and new Orders they think ate lequired. These views of each member should be collected under the various Orders affected, and then sent to each member. In this way each of them would learn his colleagues’ views and reasons, and have time to digest them carefully before the committee met as a committee. ' ■ The ground ’ thus would have been cleared of all noncontentious matter, and the committee would be able to concentrate at once on the contentious points. Copies also should be sent to certain gentlemen with’ a view to their giving evidence later before the committee. Better results probably would be obtained in this way than by withholding members’ views from the witnesses until the last moment. AVe should in fact get their considered views. Amongst the witnesses who it would be well to call would be Sir Frederic Lang (ex-Speaker' of the House of Representatives), Mr. Wilford and the Hon. A. S. Malcolm (ex-Chairmen of Committee), Sir Joseph Ward, the Hon. V. H. Reed, and Mr. Lowe (late Clerk of . the House of Representatives). The committee could then meet, and with the material already before them and the verbal evidence of the gentlemen we have named, three or four sittings should enable the committee to frame a very valuable report for the consideration of Parliament next session. If revision is not undertaken in the next recess it cannot be done before the general election, and the latter event may, by voluntary or involuntary retirement, deprive the House of one or mo're of the few members whose knowledge of the Standing Orders would be of special value.