A LEGISLATIVE MOCKERY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 72, 26 March 1931, Page 12

A LEGISLATIVE MOCKERY

The House of Representatives has been in session a fortnight. It was summoned to consider urgent business, and in the first fortnight it has adopted the Address-in-Reply and read the Finance Bill a second time. The Address-in-Reply was quickly disposed of because Government and Reform members recognised that this was not the time for general debate. The Finance Bill second reading was "stonewalled" by Labour, but nevertheless was brought to a conclusion without scandalous waste of time. It is on the committee stages of the Bill that there has been the most glaring Exemplification of the weakness of democratic government. Thirty-two hours were taken to pass the short title—a clause that is usually passed in one minute without discussion. Almost fifteen hours more—up to the breakfast adjournment to-day— have been given to a debate on clause 2, which is not yet passed. The "stonewall" is being carried on systematically with speakers in relays and resort to every means of delay which is permissible under the Standing Orders of the House.

How is this regarded in the House? By the majority of members it is considered neither scandalous nor destructive of the Parliamentary system. They look on it in what they would probably term a "sporting" spirit. It has been done before and it will be done again. Real interest in the measure which is nominally under discussion has been lost in interest in the contest between the Chairman of Committees and the "stonewallers," in humorous appreciation of the various devices adopted to add a few minutes more to the debating time, and of the ingenuity displayed by speakers in filling in their speaking spells without being called to order. There is speculation as to how long Labour can keep it up and how the "stonewall" record will compare with' previous obstructive feats. When it is done Labour will be able to make the claim: "We held the Bill up for a week or more; that's more than Mr. Massey did when he was in Opposition." But Labour will not be able to claim that its opposition lias forced the modification of any provision of the Bill. Any changes promised or in prospect at the present stage have been due to 'reasoned submissions from the Government and Reform benches.

We see in these facts a grave menace to the good repute of Parliament. The "stonewallers," by their tactics, and, in lesser measure, other members by complacent acceptance of such methods, are bringing the Legislature into contempt. Surrounded by those who have lost their sense of perspective in the "fight," they see nothing in it but a fight. The time has c.ome to take a different view. This is not a club-swinging contest or an endurance test. The serious business of Parliament should not be forgotten in contemplation of the farcical methods. If members will not respect the liberty they enjoy under the Standing Orders, i( they will not refrain from obstruction without a closure, then the Standing Orders must be revised. Exhibitions which are a travesty on democratic rule cannot longer be accepted with sporting tolerance. This is not sport, but a matter of the gravest import, and it should not be trifled with. We do not for one minute advocate curtailing the rights of the Opposition or shutting out serious argument; but if abuse of privileges is carried to the lengths it has been, the real rights can be reitajjaed., onjg;. .^ sj^gjriggihe. abuse. t