SELECT COMMITTEES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 257, 13 October 1932, Page 9

SELECT COMMITTEES

FUTILE NATURE OF WORK

CABINET'S FINAL WORD.

CRITICISM OF THE SYSTEM

(From Our Special Parliamentary Reporter.)

Wellington, Oct. 13.

The futile nature of the work of select committees set up by Parliament each session to hear petitions and make recommendations to the Government on various questions was strongly criti. cised by Mr H. G. R. Mason (Auckland Suburbs) in the House of Representatives yesterday when this sessions committees were being appointed. This is the hist limo for many years that any comment has been voiced on the working of the committees, and Mr Mason surprised members by demonstrating that these bodies have no power and that Parhament wus not honest with the country in giving the impression that they were of use by solemnly setting them up. Parliament, he said, was guilty of undignified procedure in appointing them under the present system. Io the uninitiated they had large powers, but m reality they performed few useful functions. The committees went into evidence and submitted a report to Cabinet. However, the Government knew nothing of the evidence, for no record of it was kept, yet the Government passed judgment on the committee’s recommendations in ignorance of the evidence which had led to the rocommendatins being made. One questioned whether it was a wise or honest thing to set up committees under these circumstances. People were induced io go to a great deal of trouble to present their evidence from all over the country, but the procedure was such that it was not calculated to produce results. It was the Government, through Cabinet, which decided questions in the final analysis. Petitioners and the country generally bhouid understand the illusory nature of represintations made to committees. The position would be different if the committees had wider powers. About two years ago the Government, being then in a minority, had insisted on a majority on the committees and this showed that the committees were not intended to influence the House in a manner contrary to the authority of Cabinet. The work of the committees could not, therefore, be taken seriously. Among other things a member might be on several committees, all of which were meeting at the same time, so that he could not attend all of them. This meant that he might be called on to make a decision without having heard evidence previously given. The Prime Minister said he did not think committee decisions were influenced by party considerations. He said it had to be remembered that most of the recommendations made involved expenditure, and he re called that a return recently prepared showed that if the recommendations made by one committee during one session had been carried out it would have cost the country £1,500,000. As the Government had to provide the ways and means it would be realised that committee decisions had to be considered before they were carried out. He admitted that the proceedings were often protracted and something might be done to reduce the time taken in hearing petitions. The present system had worked well in the past, and unless some alternative could be offered he thought it should remain for this session at least. MR SAMUEL AND DEFENCE MR McDOUGALL WITHDRAWS Wellington, Oct. 12. Following the appointment by the House of Representatives this afternoon of various sessional select committees. Mr Forbes said that the Government had to go into the question of finance. He had intimated that, if effect had been given to all petitions on which favourable recommendations had been made during one session, the cost to the country would have been £l,500,000. It was essentia] for the decision to rest with Cabinet, which haiLto provide ways and means. Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames) said he would like to ask the Government what procedure was adopted in the settingup of select committees. He referred particularly to the committee concerned with Defence. He was a senior military member in the House and had been left off the committee. - He had been led to believe that it was left in the hands of whips to make recommendations regarding the personnel of committees. He was not suggesting that he was being penalised for any action ho had taken in the House. It was possible that he had been too sympathetic towards the claims of returned soldiers —though he could not see how anyone could be too sympathetic. Mr W. J. Jordan (Manukau) said that Mr Samuel in the past had been a very useful member of the committee.

Mr Forbes said that in the settingup of committees an attempt had been made to dovetail the work so that no member would be embarrassed by having to serve on too many. Mr D. McDougall (Mataura) requested that he be allowed to withdraw from the committee in favour of Mr Samuel, remarking that he considered Mr Samuel know more about Defence matters than he did. On the motion of the Prune Minister the House agreed to this course.