THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1927. DIFFICULT LAW-MAKING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19798, 19 November 1927, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1927. DIFFICULT LAW-MAKING.

To the student of contemporary New Zealand history, especially the observer of political cross-currents, I there should be a fruitful subject for thought in the difficulty Parliament experiences in handling legislation which affects certain outstanding social questions. The Licensing Bill, at present virtually on remand awaiting sentence, is an example ready to hand. It is not only the momentary condition of this measure that affects the point. The whole circumstances of its introduction — sponsored by the Prime Minister without consulting his Cabinet, laid before the House with all party obligations lifted for the nonce, with whips free of their usual duties — show that something outside the usual course of Parliamentary life is afoot. It is always the same when this and one or two other subjects find a place on the order paper. Gaming legislation is of the number. The question of admitting the Bible into the State schools is rapidly qualifying to join the same company. They stand at the head of the list containing the subjects described in Parliamentary terms as " highly contentious." There are bills, even some containing provisions of high national importance, that, on the plea of urgency, can be pressed through all stages in a single sitting, every necessary motion being passed on the voices, no division lists going' on the record. Nothing affecting any of these questions can have such an easy passage, nor ever will under present conditions. Feeling on these questions of social importance runs high in Parliament, because Parliament merely reflects what is felt outside its walls. Views upon them are sharply divided in the community, and members, in addition to their personal convictions, feel that their constituents expect them to be decisive and unyielding one way or the other. Whatever course they take somebody will be alienated, but apparently the ruling sentiment is that unflagging zeal will clinch the allegiance of those voters who are for the side the member is supporting. It used to be said, sneeringly, that no measure affecting the liquor trade could pass through the Parliament of Great Britain; it would be defeated in the House of Lords because a certain section of the peers held so many brewery shares. In New Zealand, fortunately, it is not the personal pecuniary interests of members that rule the situation. Votes are what loom so largely when contentious measures of great public interest appear. It is better so, even though the ultimate resulf; may threaten to be the same, and necessary or desirable reforms may be held up because there is reluctance to yield any point or to compromise on questions about which the electorate feels deeply. Licensing legislation has been due for years. Last session a bill was introduced, but made no progress. This year's measure is in a doubtful position. Again, this year, a Gaming Bill, one of an ill-fated series, appeared, was hotly debated, and then shelved to the manifest relief of many members who would otherwise have had to cast a vote.

It might bo contended, with good reason, that while the country is so sharply divided about these social questions, Parliament should not legislate, upon them, for a fair degree of national agreement should support any reform in a democratic community. That is a tenable argument so far as it affects the main principles involved. It can happen,

and does happen, that subsidiary legislation, badly needed and not really contentious, fails to gain a passage because it impinges on more hotly-debated points. The current Licensing Bill illustrates this. It contains various provisions to assure better accommodation for the travelling public, but the whole bill having been delayed and imperilled, these desirable reforms are suspended in mid-air. It is true they could be brought in as a separate measure, but, if they were, the whole subject of licensing legislation would be thrown open for debate, the whole battle could, and almost certainly would, begin again. It is the same with gaming legislation, which has been responsible for the most prolonged stonewalls Parliament has seen in recent years. Nobody can suggest with reason that the existent laws governing gaming are incapable of improvement, yet any attempt to change them opens the flood gates and lets loose a veritable torrent of argument, denunciation, and attempted amendment in all directions. Not only is progress on the actual measure negligible, the whole business of the country is held up for the time being. Here is where the least desirable feature of it all appears. So keen is the interest taken in these few questions that others of deep national importance tend to become obscured, at elections and afterwards. There is no real issue from such a position, but the ideal one would be for Parliament to determine that legislation on all such contentious subjects, embodying the best compromise possible, should be put through in a given session, and then that both House and country be allowed a respite during which a circumscribed set of social issues would not be permitted to divert attention from wider national issues and the task of efficient public administration.