EDITORIALS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 843, 27 April 1888, Page 27

EDITORIALS.

« The New Rules.

When we indicated, some weeks ago, the character and scope of the new Rules of Procedure which were likely to be introduced into Parliament by the present G overnment in the coming session, a round of adverse criticism was heard in several quarters. It was asserted that the proposed changes in procedure were utterly needless and uncalled for. It was declared to be “ sheer weakmindedness or muddleheadeduess to imagine that because there was some obstruction lash session and some Bills were passed with all their blunders thick upon them, therefore freedom of debate must be restricted and a procedure which is that of the House of Commons in its best days, and which has served us excellently here for half a century ( sic ), must be turned upside clown and inside out.” Doubts were expressed whether the obstruction last session did not do more good than harm, because “ it greatly strengthened the Ministry at a time when it was good for the country that they should be strong, aud while it enabled them ta carry all necessary measures by overwhelming majorities, it choked off a mass of mischievous legislation which would otherwise have got upon the Statute Book.” It was remarked that “ obstruction is not by any means an nnmixed evil ; it is the price we pay for having the Radical party in opposition instead of in office; and at that price the bargain i 3 a very profitable* one for the country.” Aud one critic asserted that the matter was nob really worth discussing. As Sir Harry Atkinson did riot enter politics yesterday, and that though he may, perhaps, talk about Closure, or let others talk about it, when he tries to introduce ic it may be taken “ as a sign that his retirement from public life in New Zealand is not far off.” We do not know whether the last sentence is to be deemed prophetic. If so, it may perhaps be bracketed with another prophecy which has been put forth in a different quarter, to the effect that Sir Harry Atkinson does contemplate early “ retirement from public life in New Zealand ” to the haven of repose offered hy the AgeucyGenerah But we scarcely think that this was meant. More probably the. Premier’s retirement from public life. : was merely mentioned figuratively as* one of those pre-eminently unlikely events, such as tho falling of the skies—on the occurrence of which tho yearning infant is promised a, plentiful supply’ of larks, or the incidence of two Sundays in one week,, which is. also exhibited to the eyes of guileless childhood as the; futuresignal for an abundance of cakes or sweets, or other youthful, delightsHowever this may be, wo have the solid fact before us that, the proposed new Rules of Procedure haves been actually issued by the Government in printed form for the consideration of members, and were published in full in our columns last week. 8o at all events the Premier means to attempt their introduction. "We cannot admit that last session’s obstruction did more good than harm. It undoubtedly strengthened the present Ministry, and that was v>ra tan to- beneficial. But it also unquestionably had some very unsatisfactory legislative consequences, among which we may instance the blunder iu the Loan. Act. The argument that procedure which is good enough for the. House of Commons should not be disturbed, is somewhat unfortunate in view qS thefact that the House of Commons itself some years ago made important; amendments in its rules in the direction of increased stringency, and has. still more recently adopted yet more stringent provisions against obstruction. The contention that the existing regulations have served New Zealand so well for “ half-a century 1 ’ (!) that they should not be altered, also falls, to the ground in the face of the eve.pts of ISSI, when a total deadlock, was only released after a 72 hours’ con- ! tinuous sitting of the Hoiv d e, by an entirely arbitrary aud unwarrantable stretch of authority on the part of theChairman of Committees, and an equally arbitrary proceeding on the part of the Speaker. It effected its end and closed a painful scene, bus none the less is it undesirable that the working or our Parliamentary iu-j stitutions should ever become only possible through a" personal overriding of the law ou the part of individual officers of the House. Strong , measures of restriction having been i proved necessary, they ought to be I provided for by regular rules, so that.

members should know distinctly what they can and cannot do, and what risk they incur if they deliberately seek to delay business by an abuse of the House’s forms. We are very glad therefore that Ministers have had the -courage and good sense to take this matter in hand, and we hope the new rules, or at any rate the bulk of them, ■will be agreed to by the HouseGlancing over the proposed rules, it will be observed that among the ■provisions against wilful obstruction are the following (1) The order ■that questions shall be put and answered in writiug ; (2) the prevention of frivolous and vexatious motions for adjournment; 13) the power •of Closure invested in the Chair; (4) the authority given to the Chair to put a slop to “irrelevance or tedious repetition,” and to “ direct the [offending] member to discontinue his speech.” All these are salutary mul desirable reforms which cannot impede the freedom of speech in the true and proper sense of the term, but ■will enable an effective check to be imposed upon mere licence, and upon the pestilent practico of “talking against time.” Other provisions for facilitating the despatch of business are the introduction of the “ Grand Committee” system in connection with local Sills ; the rearrangement of the order of business as to “ Government Days” and “Private Members’ Days”; and the very important reform of substituting day for night sitlings. These alterations all seem to us advisable. The day sittings are likely to be especially advantageous alike to the progress of public business and to the health of members themselves. The existing plan of doing all the principal w r ork during the night is irrational and unnatural in itself, and distinctly prejudicial both to the sauitnry welfare of mem hers and to the business interests of the country. It is pleaded on behalf of night sittings that men can speak better by artificial light and, we may add, after dining liberally and in the stimulating presence of , a crowded ladies’ gallery. But, although thk anay be very it is not busi 3iess, and it is not what members are elected (and paid) for. The tendency is to too much “ tail-talk ” and too little solid work. Daytime sittings would change all this. If the night is the season for oratory, the day is the season for work, and work is what the country wants, not mere speechifying to the ladies, or even to the public gallery. If this most salutary reform should be adopted, there is little doubt -that it will tend to bring about two highly-desirable results : the material shortening of the duration of sessions, with a proportionate saving of expense to the taxpayers, and a vast improvement alike in the rate of progress of the public business and in the quality of the business transacted.