SEVENTY-FIVE DAYS OF PARLIAMENT GONE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 34, 3 November 1934, Page 6

SEVENTY-FIVE DAYS OF PARLIAMENT GONE

Members, Measures and the Ways of the House (By Recoedeb.) The seventy-fifth Parliamentary clay this session began in the House of Representatives yesterday forenoon as though it were a first sitting. Members generally appeared to be in a nothing-matters mood, and there was no evidence of inspiration or promise of piquancy. Spectators were so few that the entrance of two young ladies to the front row of the “dress circle’’ caused even staid legislators to raise their angle of vision. The girls wore conspicuous twin hats, suggesting but a single thought—which,- a few minutes later, was revealed by sedate retirement. Their quick disillusionment could be excused as easily as it can be explained. The golden days of eloquent young men in politics and veteran orators with silver locks are gone. “Mr Speaker: I want to say iu regard to ,” and then, as the want is served, the plainest evidence that the wistful man had nothing to say, after all. A. great pity: and a great waste of opportunity. Curbing Talk.

And yet the first question put without notice indicated a belief among members that the flow of talk ou big occasions should not be dammed too 'quickly. A rule of the House limits speech in main debates to half an hour unless it be the will of members to grant an extension of time. Usually this time-limit is both amplp and merciful, since in 30 minutes a fluent speaker should have no difficulty in filling about 4 columns of “The Dominion” (if be could get them) ; but some debaters, like heavy aeroplanes, need a long run before they can zoom in graceful flight. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Govt., Waitomo) asked if the Prime Minister would amend the Standing Orders so that objection from at least three members (instead of as nominated, one only) would be required to deny an extension of time to a speaker. This revived an old controversy long known to the Parliaments of many countries:' Should a wise man be allowed to stop a fool in political debate? Should a fool be permitted to stop a wise man? And, should one fool have the right to silence another? There is, of course, nothing personal in these questions. The member for Waitomo is anything but foolish in debate. The Prime Minister said it might be better to allow extension to be refused by the objections of seven members. The Government, however, would consider tlie question. ’

Sessional Values. So far, the House has passed 28 Government Bills, nine local and five private measures in seventy-four working days. Yesterday the Order Paper contained six policy Bills which should be passed without much more waste of expensive time, while another of the series of “sensational” Bills was thrown in to quicken a dawdling House into useful activity. It demonstrated again that Governments far apart can work almost as one when the need of action 1 is clamant. The value of the enactments this session cannot be assessed just yet; it will require time and general experience to prove their worth or weakness. In all probability several of them will reappear next year in amending Bills. Experience teaches wise men, who often are led into error by political expediency. But a period of seventy-live Parliamentary days is at least wide enough to reveal the merit of the Legislature and the mettle of its most prominent'members.

Leaders and Lieutenants. Impartial observers could do not king else but agree that tbe outstanding administrator during a difficult session has been the Minister of Finance, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates. He has carried the heaviest share of work and serious, responsibilities, and even his worst enemies would say that he has borne the burden with something better than the vigour of a hewer of wood and drawer of water. Emergencies have tested and improved him. His strength lies in fairness, tact and good temper. He appears most to advantage under crossfire and enjoys a brisk attack; occasionally lie likes to fling a political hand grenade into the enemy’s trenches. Legislative tusks havq kept him conspicuously in the firing line. The Prime Minister, the Rt, Hou. G. W. Forbes, lias been as solid and steady as ever, but it cannot be said that he is ns effective iu debate as he used to be in tlie old brigade of fighting Liberals. Perhaps administrative leadership cramps a born fighter’s style and limits his (■’■-►ice of weapons. In any ease, there is not tlie same need now for shrewd infighting and the deft use of cudgels. Mr. M. J. Savage, the canny Lender of the Opposition, has proved to be less relentless in political warfare than his able predecessor. He says what he believes should be said and says it briefly and almost witli a fierce terseness. He is a deliberate thinker, speaks slowly, ;u;fl demonstrates wide reading and jiersonal research. But lie does not rush at the door of opportunity. Indeed, it often seems that he and his team actually fail to sou that the door is wide open all the time.

Along the Benches. There is no use. pretending that political merit is higli among the rank and- file of any party. Most of the members on back and cross benches do their best work for the country on committees and in following their leaders —or themselves, as in the case of the lonely Independents. There is talk of Mr. S. G. Smith (Govt., New Plymouth) being promoted to the Ministry after the adjournment of Parliament. If the rumour should run to truth tlie House will lose a competent Chairman of Committees, whose geniality takes the sting out of occasionally oversharp firmness. But the Ministry will gain a vigorous debater (and faith it.ueeds a few!). The farmers ought to be satisfied with their representative, Mr. W. J. Polson (Govt., Stratford). He speaks well and often, and never allows the town to obscure his vision of the country. It is to be regretted that the Hon.. TV. Downie Stewart (Govt., Dunedin West) is not in his right place on the front benches. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Ind., Thames) is a polished speaker, but he speaks alone and aloof. Mr. P. Fraser (Lib., Wellington Cantral) is an alert tactician and almost an ideal first lieutenant for a Labour camp. He is an effective debater. But the ablest politician of them all is in "another place,” the Upper House. He is tlie Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Bell—a political patriarch who has forgotten as futile many things that other legislators are learning In the hope that they may be useful..