The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 2, 1893.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10105, 2 August 1893, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 2, 1893.

A motioh’ of which Sir Robert Stout gave notice two weeks ago expresses by implication a sentiment very generally entertained by those who have, during the past few years, watched the working of parliamentary institutions in New Zealand. That motion, if carried, would convey an instruction to the Standing Orders Committee to devise some new rule of procedure that would save the enormous waste of public time and money caused by the abuse of the forms of the House, more especially by repeated motions for adjournment. That this particular form of abuse is becoming serious and intolerable, no earnest man impressed with the importance of parliamentary deliberations can for a moment doubt. Last session over a score of afternoons were absolutely wasted in aimless and profitless discussions, brought about by some member —usually one of the trio who composed the Middle Party—moving the adjournment of the House, iu order to discuss such trivialities as the cost of a painting job, the scandal of the street corner, or the gossip of a newspaper. Had the offending member confined himself to the ventilation of any grievance, real or assumed or imaginary, no debate would have followed. But the practice was to make, under cover of a grievance, a determined attack on Ministers or their policy, and to make misstatements and charges of the wildest character which could not be allowed to go unchallenged. Hence it came about that nearly every afternoon some two hours were consumed in an interchange of recriminations, in violent assertion and positive contradiction, of no imaginable use to the country and of not the slightest interest or imanyone outside of Parliament its®?. This session the same objectionable tactics are being repeated, with a sameness that is wearisome in its arrant stupidity and sickening in its utter uselessness. If there is any variation on last session, it is a change for the worse—a descent to venting personal spleen and attempting to injure Ministers’ private business by a gross misuse of the privilege of moving the adjournment of the House. Examples of these tactics are to be found in Mr Fish’s calumnious attack on Bir Robert Stout under the pretext of discussing the affairs of a private railway company in Otago, and in the repeated attacks made by Mr Fisher on the morning journal in Wellington for no other reason than that it is owned by Ministers and is apparently gaining a wider circulation and influence than it ever before possessed. While we fully agree that something ought to be dona to limit this discreditable practice, it is not so easy to suggest a remedy. The House has always shown a great disinclination to amend its Standing Orders, and though the Committee on the subject has devoted a vast amount of labour to making suggestions, these have been persistently ignored by Parliament. We are not prepared to assert that the privilege of moving the adjournment of the House should be entirely withdrawn, for occasions sometimes arise when it may be employed for ventilating public questions which could not otherwise be brought under the notice of Parliament and the country. The reform that is needed is some rule that shall limit the scope of debates originated on motions for adjournment, so that it may no longer be possible for members to talk by the hour on “ things in general,” no matter what may have been the ostensible purpose in intercepting the course of business. There might also be a change made that would limit the occasions upon which the adjournment of the House might be moved. It would be more in the public interest if, concurrently with the limitation of motions for adjournment, greater facilities were provided for discussing and dividing upon declaratory and abstract motions. As the Standing Orders are now framed, it is next to impossible to have any abstract proposition exhaustively debated and submitted to the test of a division. Very important service can bo rendered by such debates, in the way of educating the House and the public on questions that are almost ripe for legislation. In many cases a day spent in this way would result in legislation being furthered by giving Ministers

an unmistakable indication of the mind of the House on certain points of policy. There has been raised this session the question of abolishing totalisator betting, but the adjourned, debate is not at all likely to be resumed, and so no result will bo attained. The moral cowardice of members is chiefly responsible for the burking of debate on such questions aa this, and so the interests of the Colony aro allowed to suffer. The motion of Sir Robert Stout to which we have referred has no prospect of coming on for debate at all this session. Many of the wasted hours of Parliament are spent in talking with the unworthy object of preventing some subjects being discussed, and with the more objectionable intention of filling in an afternoon so that a given speaker may have the opportunity of airing his eloquence to full galleries at the evening sitting. We are rapidly approaching the conviction that if Parliament does not mend its ways, the whole institution will fall beneath contempt. Standing Orders framed for the purpose of preserving decorum and expediting business, have by malignant ingenuity been twisted into devices for thwarting progress and for creating disorder. It is melancholy to reflect that volumes have been written in order to direct the business of grave deliberative assemblies, and that despite these masses of rule and precedent, the disorderly element remains powerful and unchecked. It is significant that, towards the close of each session, when the Standing Orders are for the time being entirely laid on one side, our Parliament gets through business much more rapidly and satisfactorily than at any other time. The irresistible conclusion is that the obstruction in the earlier stage of the session is as wilful as it is unjustifiable, and the only effective way to reform the working of parliamentary institutions is to improve the House by electing men who have a character for patriotism and earnestness and a soul above the meannesses and pettinesses too common in political life at present.

If the electors act upon this principle at the approaching general election, they will certainly reject some half-dozen members of the present House who have gained a pre-eminence for obstructive talk and disorderly conduct. The people could in this way purify Parliament and raise the tone of political life ; but unfortunately other issues and considerations in nearly every instance determine election contests. What will probably happen if Parliament does not accomplish reform of its methods from within, is that an outraged public will sweep away the whole institution as it at present exists, and substitute for it a mere body of delegates whose sole duty will be to give legislative shape to proposals initiated by the people themselves. '