A BUSINESSLIKE HOUSE

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 57, 5 September 1934, Page 8

A BUSINESSLIKE HOUSE

The suggestion made by Mr. Jull that administrative work should be shared by committees of Parliament is interesting. Mr. Jull thinks this would shorten the sessions by lessening the time given to criticism of administration. Each Minister, he suggests, should have a committee of the House which would meet monthly and assist in administration. Shortening of the sessions would induce people to stand for Parliament who cannot now afford to give five months a year to the session. We should like to think that this would be the result; but we. doubt if Parliament can be so easily persuaded to adopt reasonable methods. If members do not talk upon one thing they will talk on another. The only way to make the session short is to have all the important proposals ready, so that the opening weeks are not wasted (as they have been this year) in aimless debates. Further, would the association of committees with Minislcrs lead to greater expedition? Many Bills now go to committees! but the House still takes its full time in discussing them. The ultimate responsibility would still rest on the Minister, even if he were also chairman of the committee. If the committees were to meet monthly in the recess that would be an additional expense either to the country or the members and would be inconvenient to members residing far from Wellington. Mr. Jull's aim is praiseworthy. Parliamentary methods are in need of improvement. But we think a greater improvement can be effected in other ways. In the first place businessljke leadership from Cabinet is necessary. Present methods are an invitation to members to waste time until the most important business is ready. If Ministers are overworked and cannot keep pace with the House they can be given greater relief by the appointment of Parliamentary under-secretaries (without pay). We suggested a variation of this method to permit an investigation of youth unemployment, as the Minister of Employment obviously could not give sufficient time for such an inquiry. The Government adopted the idea by asking Messrs. S. G. Smith and Ansell to make the inquiry. Their work was valuable, but we think it would have been better still if one of them had been asked to continue (as an under-secretary) to follow up the inquiry by action. Of course, every Minister would not require an under-secretary, but some could be greatly helped, as they would be freed from the necessity for constant attendance in the House. If, however, it is the weight of work placed on Ministers that contributes to the unbusinesslike methods of Parliament there is a mere direct and simple method of correcting this. Let the Cabinet be reconstituted so that the duties are more evenly distributed. A little while ago members were quite keenly pressing for reform in this way. Now they seem to have lost interest. Why? It is just as plain now as it was previously that Ministers have not equal capacity— that important policy measures are decided and handled by the few, and that the Cabinet is quickly becoming a one-man show. Is Mr. Jull's proposal a roundabout way of attacking this or does it indicate that members are nervous of entrusting even administrative duties to Ministers unless they are watched by committees?