A LEISURELY DEBATE

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 12, 14 July 1922, Page 6

A LEISURELY DEBATE

The length of last session and the large amount of important legislation which was then passed were mentioned in the GovernorGeneral's Speech as reasons why the present session " should not be of more than average duration." An additional reason for a short session, which seemed likely to carry greater weight, was also parenthetically thrown in—viz., that members would thus be given " a proper opportunity of visiting their constituencies before the date of the General Election." The way in which the first fortnight of the session has passed does not suggest either that His Excellency's ■ Advisers have made any special preparations for providing this oppor> tunity, or that members are particularly anxious that they should. The debate on the Address-in-Reply has droned along in. as leisurely and futile a fashion as though time did not count and the waste of it was one of their recognised privileges or even duties. Towards the end of the session members will be counting the days with a feverish impatience and rushing measures through blindfold in order to face their constituents. But for the present they are marking time instead of counting it, and the chances of an adequate election campaign are cheerfully sacrificed to the hope of impressing their constituents through the pages of Hansard.

The case is not one in which the Government can reasonably throw the blame upon the Opposition. Ministers have been at least as much to blame as their critics. Had they had their measures ready, it is impossible to suppose that they would have allowed the debate to sprawl its useless length over a wiple fortnight, and even supplied speakers to help in the wasteful process. Members have had to talk in order to give Ministers time to get the Bills ready. It is the old, old story—the old, old story against which the Opposition of the day is accustomed to protest, reserving to itself the right to do the same when, its iSU'A comes for. office;. In

the present case, the Opposition has been helping in the process instead of embarrassing the Government by hindering it. Has the party secured any solid advantage by way of compensation 1 Certainly not very much. The grounds of attack set out in Mr, Wilford's noconfidence motion contain very little on which to appeal to the country, nor have the speeches delivered in support of it helped materially to make good the deficiency. Aa Opposition is rarely, if ever, under an obligation to supply the detailed programme which is necessary as soon as it takes office, but it must at least provide strong and pertinent criticism of the Government policy, and some indication of the lines on which it may be expected to do better when its chance comes. Neither on the negative.nor on the positive side has the Opposition done much .to satisfy these conditions during the past fortnight.

Three of the five counts of Mr. Wiliord's indictment of the Government njight have figured in any indictment of any Government in a time of depression. No Government has yet been able "to deal satisfactorily with the problem of unemployment." No Government has succeeded in preventing the aggregation of land. Every Government has laid itself open to the charge of extravagant expenditure^ especially since the war obliterated all'the old standards of eppnpmy. The fact that extravagance is common is, however, no reason why it should not be denounced, and the Government has undoubtedly laid itself open to reasonable censure in this'respect. But the resistance offered by the Opposition to the Government's, retrenchment scheme, if it does not put them right out of Court, certainly discounts their criticism very heavily. In the speech which closed the de r bate on Mr. Wilford's amendment yesterday, Mr. Massey said that the figures for the last quarter will show that the expenditure was £1,000,000 less than-it was during the corresponding quarter of last year. This. is something tc be thankful for, and there is fortunately more to come. To this definite evidence of improvement Mr. Massey added that Mr. Wilford's general charge of extravagance had not beep supported by particulars, and that he had not made due allowance for the war. Governments have hitherto made so free a use of the war as a cover for their sins that they must not be surprised if their critics now go to the opposite extreme.

The failure of the Government " to redeem its promise that on the repeal of the second ballot another method of election would be substituted " was the one of Mr. Wilford's charges which the Government had most difficulty in meeting. The contention that the promise had been fulfilled by reverting to the old system was too patent a quibble to deserve serious consideration, and it is to Mr. Massey's credit that he did not rely upon it. He was indeed perfectly frank. The promise of substituting an improved system for the second ballot has not been carried out because he knows more about the matter than when he gave the promise. Apparently, Mr. Massey also knows more about the matter now than he did in 1914, when the Legislative CPBncil Act was passed. If proportional representation ia really open to the objections tentatively raised by Ml. Downie Stewart and definitely adopted by Mr. Massey, the case for refusing to apply it to the election of the Council seems to be overwhelming. But while the Government's face is so firmly set against extending the principle, the Liberals and the Labour Party might make better progress by reviving Mr. M'Nab's Absolute Majority Bill than along their present lines.