Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, August 5th., 1929. IN PARLIAMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 August 1929, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, August 5th., 1929. IN PARLIAMENT

PERIODICALLY, the Dominion Parliament has qualms as to whether the business of the House is being conducted on right lines, a matter upon which outsiders have little doubt. Recently, a committee was authorised to consider the Standing Orders and to make recommendations. This was done and the House opened a debate on the subject on Friday. The suggested reforms were not too popular especially the proposals that Members should observe normal politeness and listen to each other’s speeches, instead of reading newspapers while a debate was in progress. This preferejQ.ee to the Press

can be excused, as there’ is little doubt which, is the more interesting, but the fact demonstrates just what value the House places on its own deliberations.

The closure was not proposed, and, for the most part, not wanted. Mr. H. E. Holland supported a proposal that parliamentary papers should not be discussed until Members knew the contents I Mr. Forbes (Minister for Lands) said he thought the proposals would enhance the reputation of the House for carrying out its work in a businesslike manner. Sir Charles Statham expressed the view that the limitation proposed in respect to the Address-in-Reply debate was at least worth trying. On the other hand, Mr. Coates did not consider half-an-hour was sufficient for speakers in the Address-in-Reply debate. He was not in favour of the present practice of extending the present time of one hour. There were other representative comments, but the right of free speech and plenty of it, is obviously valued by the Members, if not by the people who pay for Parliament’s upkeep.

The funniest comments came from those Members who jealously guarded the right to read. Mr. H. E. Holland wa.x almost alone in desiring to uphold the dignity of the House. It was, he said, disconcerting for a speaker to find himself addressing rows of newspapers, and to find members giving no attention to the views he had to express. Mr. A, Harris could see no objection to the circulation of newspapers in the House, so long as the rustling of paper did not hamper the work. Labour Members opposed their leader’s view, and Sir Joseph Ward bowed to necessity. He declared that he had come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to drop the suggestion concerning newspapers. He thought there was very little in the objections raised to the limitation of time for the Address-in-Reply speeches. It was mainly a matter of habit that had caused most members to take a full hour for a speech on this subject. The Address-in-Reply debate as a rule served no important purpose, beyond giving the Government an indication Of the various members’

views. ! This last comment provides ample justification to those who have denounced the waste of time in the House. Little or nothing has been done so far this session, except waste-time debate, and a repetition of such verbal inanity is predicted over the Financial Statement, the discussion on which begins to-morrow. ‘ ‘ The reputation of the House for carrying out of its work in a. businesslike manner” does not exist, —outside Parliament, —and the public have cause to be dissatisfied that the Standing Orders of the House were not re-modelled on drastic lines.