MAJORITY MUST RULE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 74, 28 March 1931, Page 8

MAJORITY MUST RULE

The Government's decision to introduce the closure in the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives is by no.means revolutionary. There is a closure provision which is freely used in the British House of Commons, and oilier Parliaments of the Empire also have this provision as a safeguard against obstructive tactics by a minority. Hitherto New Zealand has sought to do without the closure, relying instead upon a timelimit oa speeches and upon the good sense of members. When the Standing Orders were last revised the introduction of the closure was considered, but in place of it a lower time limit was placed on speeches. Even so, as has been clearly demonstrated this week, it is possible for an organised minority to defeat the democratic principle of majority rule—at least for a lime. It therefore becomes necessary to adopt the system of other Parliaments and give to the majority the power to check the obstructive tactics of a minority. Mr. M'Combs, when discussing a different point last night, supplied one of the strongest arguments in favour of the change. He quoted ihe fact that our Standing Orders direct that we must follow the usages of the House of Commons in cases not provided for in our own Standing Orders. This general direction to follow the House of Commons in case of doubt should surely guide us now in considering whether we should introduce the closure. The House of Commons has the closure. The arguments submitted by the Leader of the Labour Party iii an interview against the application of the closure lo ihe Finance Bill are ridiculous. Hi; says that it will prevent any effectives discussion of the- proposals to cut down grants to education boards and subsidies to hospitals, with l.hfi consequent induction of nurses' salaries. It will also provent any criticism in Committee of the proposal to destroy contracts and agreements made under the Arbitration Act. If the Labour Party, with the latitude given on the second reading and taken in almost a week's continuous sitting in Committee, has been unable to present its "effective criticism," it must stand condemned as a remarkably ineffective and inept Opposition. What has the Labour Party been doing all these days if it now pleads that it has had no opportunity to criticise the proposals? We can agree that, the Parly has not presented effective criticism; and that is a sound reason for preventing further trifling with the House such as look place in the burlesque of thirty hours' discussion of the short title. If the Party lias not been able to

criticise effectively so far, it could not do so if it were allowed to talk for a year. At the same lime, we arc not strongly in favour of the form oi closure adopted by the Government. We would prefer to see a closure with more effective safeguards against arbitrary and unreasonable action by the Government in control of the House. We do not fear any such abuse of Parliamentary privileges by the present Government; but Mr. Holland has pointed to another danger. What Mr. Forbes semis to Have lost night of (ho stated) is the fact that tlib closiu'o is v two-edged weapon, which very often cuts the lingers of its own manufacturers. The experiences in Now South Wales .furnish eloquent testimony of this. Tho .Nationalists introduced the closure there, and now their opponents iv offi.ee apply it more or less relentlessly to themselves. Though we hope that the good sense of the electors will guard New Zealand from the peril of a dictatorial Labour Government such as that in New South Wales, we support Mr. Holland's artless warning that it would be prudent not to leave sharp two-edged weapons about for such a Government to use.