PARLIAMENT AND WAR

Evening Star, Issue 23553, 17 April 1940, Page 4

PARLIAMENT AND WAR

DEMOCRATIC TRIUMPH IN ENGLAND GRAND COUNCIL OF NATION EXAMPLE FOR NEW ZEALAND ■ From time to time 1 myself and the Opposition caucus have drawn attention to the fact that Parliament in New Zealand has not met since late last year, that the intended February assembly was avoided, and that the date of its next sitting is still obscure,” says the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Adam Hamilton) in a statement. “ On the very important subject of Parliament’s function in a crisis like this 1 wish to engage earnest public consideration. The "subject cannot be dismissed easily, and 1 am sure the long period without any session of Parliament in New Zealand has had a disturbing influence, particularly regrettable at this time. ‘.‘.Particularly I wish to set before New Zealanders the outline of the functioning of Parliament in England, as was well described and analysed by Lord Strabolgi in the February issue of a British magazine. Lord Strabolgi sat as a Labour member in the House of Commons for 13 years, and is now, the well-known Labour peer. I wish to give extracts from Lord Strabolgi’s article, and for this _ purpose I have necessarily condensed it, without, however, interfering in any way with ; its purport or train of fact. Here is what Lord Strabolgi wrote:— “ ‘ Even some of the best friends of our democratic constitution believed that once the guns began to shoot the Mother of Parliaments would be put to sleep for the duration of the war. . . . What actually happened was that from the first days of the crisis . . . our Parliament took on a new lease of life and reasserted its power in unmistakable fashion. Despite far-reaching emergency powers, censorship, and upheaval, the two Houses asserted themselves with a power and resolution which few had foreseen or could have believed. “ 1 What of Parliament since war was declared? Many feared, or even hoped, that Parliament would become a mere registering machine for governmental decrees. ... (Parliament was to adjourn and flee to the Welsh mountains.) But the general resistance to a policy of scuttle carried the day. This was the first victory of the Legislature over the executive. The next success was the determination to remain in session. “ ‘ As soon as the emergency powers, giving immense powers to the Government, were rushed 1 through the intention was to send Parliament away on a long holiday. . . . This was resisted. Finally, through the Whips, it was agreed that both Houses of Parliament should meet on three days a week instead of five. This was the second triumph for democracy. The pleasant proposal always to rise before blackout was defeated. Workmen encountered the blackout, why not M.P.sP LIVE FUNCTION IN WAR. “ ‘ What use was made of this insistence of Parliament ini remaining alive? (1) All normal peacetime legislation was. dropped. ' (2) No Bills unconnected with the prosecution of the tfar were introduced. (3) Members waived their rights to introduce private Bills. (4) Parliament pressed successfully for the right to discuss public estimates from time to time and to discuss grievances before supply, (o) We have retained the right to discuss, move amendments to, and vote on, the War Budget. (6) Rights are reserved (a) to raise matters involving legislation on motions for adjpurnment; (b) to raise matters not involving legislation on motions of adjournment; (c) to table

motions, including motions of censure; (d) to move the adjournment on matters of urgent public importance; .(e) and perhaps most important of all, to question Ministers on policy and administration. ... “ ‘ The Opposition parties, having declined an invitation to participate in the Government, promised general support for the prosecution of the war, while retaining the right to criticise. These criticisms have been constructive. The cross-examination of Ministers at question time has always been most valuable, and it has been particularly valuable during the first few mouths of the war. There were inevitable frictions, delays, and difficulties of and of a changeover from a peacetime to a war economy. . . . These defects were brought to the light of day (example of delay in pay to wives of soldiers, etc.).. “ ‘ The ex-Secretary of War, Mr Hore-Belisha, lost his temper on one occasion when questioned about coatless soldiers on guard duty, saying it would provide propaganda fob the Germans. He was instantly suppressed by the House of Commons, irrespective of party. If there is never to be criticism of Ministers . . . then Parliament will be hamstrung. At to propaganda —the more it stresses the activity of Parliament the better. “ ‘ There is a censorship in matters raised in the House; (1) The Speaker can refuse certain questions; (2) Ministers approach members or Whips with comment pointing out unsuspected danger, and (3) Ministers can always refuse to answer “ in the public interest.” CHECK ON BUREAUCRACY. ‘‘ ‘ Perhaps the greatest, democratic triumph of Parliament so far has been concerned with the special powers of emergency legislation. . . . The drastic regulations, before being debated, were submitted to a special committee representative of all parties with a view to agreement. The examination modified or struck out several of the more drastic rules. This was a clear example of the checking of bureaucracy, temporarily gone mad, by the Legislature. ... ‘ Parliamentary pressure resulted in an improved separation allowance for dependents of soldiers; had soldiers’ conditions- arid ages reviewed; had the Ministry of Information reformed and remodelled. . . .- “ ‘ The influence of Parliament on the conduct of the war had been great. The one-day secret session (recently repealed) was a success. Valuable work has been done behind the scenes in committees which have full statutory powers. " ‘ During the difficult days, the Leader of the Opposition was called into consultation by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary and informed of principal developments. In return for a promise of general support, the Prime ' Minister immediately invited the Acting Leader of the Opposition to consult with the principal Ministers directly concerned with the war on any matter that appeared urgent and important. Finally, members of the Opposition were by agreement delegated as liaison officers between particular Ministries and the Opposition parties. These men act as channels of information also to the Ministers and departments. The system works well. In addition, the Opposition parties have their own committees discussing war economy and its various branches. “ ‘ The House of Commons, in which I had the honour of sitting for 13 years, is the most democratic assembly in the world. , . . It has its defects: and it was losing some of its powers. Originally devised as a defence of the people against both nobles and King—in other words, against the bureaucracy of the day—it had become too cumbersome under present-day conditions. A body , originally formed to prevent the executive from doing too much or acting too quickly had not heed able to adjust itself to a situation in which governmental action and intervention had become necessary in ever-increasing spheres of national activity. The war has given Parliament a new lease of life. It has, in a way, reverted to its old status of a Grand Council :of the Nation. ' ‘ It may well be that we will have to put certain of our constitutional liberties in cold storage for the v purpose of winning the war. Parhainent is ■ performing the double function of seeing that restrictions are not imposed except where necessary, ndr applied harshly, nor against the dictates of common sense; and of seeing to it that His Majesty’s present advisers, who happened to be in office when we were forced into war, carry out the will of the nation, and prove. themselves the most suitable for this purpose.’ “ Thus Lord Strabolgi tells the story,” concluded Mr Hamilton. “1 am sure New Zealand people will read it with interest. It is food for grave reflection here. Need I labour the point? It is obvious we must put our house in order. I am sure the vast majority of the people are concerned—as the Opposition I lead is—at the; corresponding attitude and function of Parliament herei” MR FRASER'S REPLY • i HOUSES MEET IN JUNE [Pea Ukitkd Pkbss Association.] WELLINGTON, April 16. An announcement that it was proposed to arrange for Parliament to meet early in June was made by the Prime Minister (Mr P. Fraser); in an interview to-night, when a statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr A'dam Hamilton) on the functions of Parliament in war time, which was issued to-day, was referred to him. Mr Fraser added that if any serious situation arising from the war developed before that time Parliament would be convened immediately. j. ” I have perused Mr Hamilton’s statement and the quotation from Lord Strabolgi’s article with interest,” Mr Fraser said. “ A good deal of the article is inapplicable to New Zealand conditions. In reference to the paragraphs in Lord Strabolgi’s article dealing with the arrangements of the Prime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberjain), the Foreign Secretary (Lord Halifax), and other Ministers have made in regard to entering into consultation with the Leader of tne Opposition, I have to point out that similar steps were taken in this country at the outbreak of the war. Mr Hamilton, Mr Forbes, and Mr Coates were invited into consultation with the Government. In addition, cables relevant to the war were placed at their disposal. Such consultations can be renewed _at any time and the cables are still available for the Leader of the Opposition and his two colleagues. “ Members of both the Government party and the Opposition party have had frequent discussions with Ministers in regard to war matters,” Mr Fraser added. “ I am personally grateful for the assistance received from all sides of the House.’’ f