The Hawera Star. TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1924. “DREARY” DEBATE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 12 August 1924, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1924. “DREARY” DEBATE.

Delivered every evening By 5 o’clock in Hawera, Manaia, N^rmanby, Okaiawa, Elfcham, Pateb, Waverley, Mokoia, Wtiakamara, Ohangar, Meremere. Fraeer Hoad, and Otakeuc. Manutahi, Alton, Harleyville, Mangatoki, Eaponga, Awatuna, Opunake,

Me note that some of the- city papers used the word “dreary’' in their references to the debate on the Budget which ended last week, and if one reads the reports of the speeches one finds it difficult to see why some of the members indulge in such a waste of the country’s money, for they contribute nothing of value to its service by their speeches. One can well understand why many people take little, if any, interest in Parliament and its doings, and one can appreciate the remarks of Mr. Dickson (Port Chalmers) upon “mimic warfare.” His opinion is in line with that of the Hon W. Downie Stewart when he referred to the party warfare a few years ago as a “sham fight.” The- country would perhaps not mind so much if there were only one “sham fight” in each session, but when it is fought first on the Address-in-Beply, a second time on the Budget, a third time on the Public Works Statement, and on every conceivable occasion when the opportunity offers, people get heartily tired of it and only wish that some sensible alterations were made so as to put a stop to the shocking waste of which offending members are guilty, at a time when there is need for Parliament to set the people a good example of how to save time and money. The weakness is that some members have yet to realise that they could express their opinions in a. few sentences far better than by using up an hour for the purpose. It is not suggested that there should be no criticism of Government proposals, but there is a great difference between criticism, however severe, and denunciation and innuendo. The result is that hours and hours are spent in speeches that do not help the country in the least, and are a waste of time and money. There was a time when most of the speeches by members were worth reading. but there are few people nowadays who look forward to receiving Hansard. Mr. Dickson’s views upon an innovation “enabling members to

speak their minds, instead of obliging Government members, to support aud Opposition members to oppose, though they sometimes favoured, Government measures,” are interesting. His statement is no doubt correct that “if complete freedom of speech was allowed the Government would take great notice of the criticism of its own supporters, because it would be. sincere. 1 That statement carries with it clearlv the inference that there is a lack oi sincerity in the Opposition parties opposing and in Reform members supporting all Government measures. It is this lack of sincerity which is perhaps the most serious fact about our Parliament. No one can reasonably claim that every measure brought forward by Cabinet is perfect and should not be constructively criticised; nor is it reasonable to say that every Reform measure is bad, and -so Liberal and Labour must vote against it to a man. The more one thinks of the attitude which the party system forces members to adopt (that is if they place party before the national welfare) the more absurd does the position appear and the more urgent the need for some improvement. That the position is much the same in other Parliaments within the Empire is not, in our opinion, a. sound argument against a change for the better being made in this Dominion. In conversation one member of Parliament said some time ago: ‘‘l believe it would be better if we all stood as Independents. We would be able to vote on the merits of each measure brought forward, and not have to follow the leader every time.’’ At the present time the position is this: Hours and hours of time are taken up in speeches that are for the most part worthless, and the voting for and against is not affected in the least, so that, except in the case of non-party measures, the result can be accurately foretold at the time of the first reading of any Government Bill. There is very little constructive criticism offered, and no one benefits by the waste- of time and money, for Parliament costs the country a large sum of money every hour it is sitting. Surely, some way can be found to improve the position. If really sincere views were expressed in all the speeches, if they always contained isound criticism -and less wholesale denunciation, and if they were definitely constructive, the heavy cost would not perhaps be too high a. price to pay, but a penny per minute is an exorbitant price for those speeches which contain nothing new, add nothing to oratory, and only help to increase the number of people who have lost all interest in the proceedings in Parliament. The House lias been in session for seven weeks. During that time the cost has probably reached several thousand pounds. How much work has been done? And could it not have been done in much less time and for a much lower cost if there had been in operation a different system of debate, under which the time taken by a member in delivering his speech would have had a, fair relationship to the value of the views expressed? The risk of the country suffering loss by *efleeting some change in the present system would certainly not be serious, while it would gain by the saving in money, and some of the members who are not good speechmakers would probably gain more than they would lose. We wonder if anything will come of Mr. Dickson's suggestions, or if members will just pass them by and permit each session to wend its weary, dreary, and expensive course along the same way as the present session lias so far proceeded. A change in procedure and in the rules of Parliamentary debate is a matter that should not be undertaken lightly, but surely some better method can be devised that would effect an improvement and save the country a large sum of money. If members were to think more carefully over the questions which come before, the House and not give way to the tiresome exchange of party brickbats, better work would no doubt be done, but unfortunately there is too much attention given to the sideshows and not nearly enough to the elephants. The Wellington Post of Friday last, commenting on the debate, says: “It has been of the smallest value, considered as an aid to the preparation of a sound financial policy; and it has not even had the saving grace of being interesting or entertaining. There have been exceptions, of which, the speech by Mr. F. J. Rolleston was the most notable; but there have been few speeches which could not, with advantage, have been curtailed considerably. 'There would have been a saving of time and no loss of wisdom if some had been omitted completely. The failure of the House to deal with the greater problems cannot be excused by a plea that they were not presented in the Budget. On taxation most members are, presumably, reserving their comments for the occasion promised by the Prime Minister for discussing the Taxation Commission’s report. But there are other issues of first importance—debt- redemption, development from revenue or loan, and naval defence expenditure —to mention only a few. Who could say now what is the general opinion of members upon one of the three issues named? Yet the House has been discussing financial policy for a fortnight—or making believe to do so.” We suppose that it is too much to hope that with the ending of the Budget debate the House has come to the end of the “mimic warfare.”