THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1932 THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21326, 29 October 1932, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1932 THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

Parliament has been treated to a very frank and detailed survey of its peculiarities and its anomalies by a member who, while of long enough standing to have familiarised himself with procedure, is yet new enough to preserve a sense of detachment. To anybody not obsessed with what Mr. Endean called the "poor game" of politics, much of his criticism will appear fully justified. There can be no question that the legislative machine runs creakingly in many parts, that it is often responsible for a. vast deal of clatter with very little output, and that in the performance of many of its functions it often appears as cumbrous a piece of mechanism as could well be imagined. Traditional privileges and procedure are responsible for some of this; at least the latitude allowed members by tradition often leads to empty word-spinning and vain repetition. But because the latitude is allowed, it need not be taken advantage of to the extent often witnessed. It is, for example, a tradition rich in historical significance that before supply is granted grievances must be redressed. Consequently there is practically no limit to the subjects which may be brought up during a supply bill debate. The circumstances allow, but do not justify, much wordy repetition of arguments and contentions that may have been heard a dozen times before in the same session. The principle dates back to the time when the Commons, having gained control of the public purse, used its new-won power to prevent the arbitrary and oppressive use of Royal prerogatives. When it is used by an Opposition to cover the whole range of its objection to a Government that is assured of a majority whenever a vote is taken, an ancient tradition is exposed to grave danger of degenerating into a modern farce. The instance of supply and the redress of grievances is particularlv apposite, because it shows that tradition simply provides the opportunity for prolixity, but does not demand that it be displayed. Another example is found in the addition of a no-confidence amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion. When, after an election the balance of forces in Parliament has been altered and there seems to be an opportunity of unseating the Government, the Address-in-Reply motion offers the earliest and most natural oppor tunlty of a testing amendment When, however, with no possible chance of disturbing the Government, an amendment is tabled to the motion as a matter of routine, the procedure becomes idle and meaningless. It serves to record the implacable political hostility of the. Opposition to the Government. Thai circumstance should need no demonstration, for without it the Opposition would not be the Opposition. But this habit of demonstration points to one of the underlying, causes of tlie situation which now rules, the degree in which party dominates all Parliamentary proceedings. Many volumes have been written in the aggregate denouncing the party system, but what has always been lacking is some practicable method of superseding it with something better. It seems to satisfy a deep-lying need of human nature as expressed in politics, possibly acting at once as a focus for loyalty and an outlet for combativeness. Yet, again, it is not inevitable that party divisions should be a perpetual brake on Parliamentary progress. Much depends on the way they are regarded and the extent to which the peculiarities of the system are exploited. Coming to the particular circumstances of Parliament to-day, there is, especially on the Opposition side, an obsession with party differences, a perpetual guerilla warfare, and a palpable determination to exploit every opportunity to emphasise the difference between the two sides of the House. ' It. has been said, epigrammatically but quite inaccurately, that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose. Actually its duty is to criticise, and an efficient Opposition is unwearied in the performance of that function. But criticism does not necessarily mean condemnation; that is the distinction the Opposition to-day fails so often to draw. If it selected that to which it was fundamentally opposed in the Government's proposals and joined battle on such issues uncompromisingly ; if, on the other hand, it recognised things that were good in the official programme and endeavoured by constructive criticism to aiake them better, it would be performing the highest functions of an Opposition. This may sound like the statement of an ideal, but there have been close approxi-

mations to it in the history of New Zealand's Parliament. However, the standard of the Opposition has been low for many years and shows no signs of improving. As a result the whole Parliamentary standard tends to fall, for there is nothing more conducive to general slackness than realisation in the Government that criticism of its work will be general, not particular, that it will be subjected to wholesale indictment rather than penetrative, analytical discussion. The men who, on committees and in conferences, can be reasonable and helpful, show very different, characteristics on the floor of the House with Hansard recording and newspaper representatives taking note of their words. They seem to be perpetually addressing the electorate, and few appear to believe that n. constructive spirit, the manifestation of a desire to help on the work of administration would commend them to the voter as they apparently think sweeping condemnation anil wholesale indictment do. Yet there is reason to believe the country grows inexpressibly weary of this spate of words, and the prestige of Parliament is not increased by it. There is no need for alterations in the constitution or in the rules of procedure. The power to amend Parliamentary ways is in the hands of members and party organisations. It is for them to realise the justice of recent criticisms and to set in order the House in which they sit as representatives of the people.