THE OLD PARTY BIAS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10632, 3 July 1920, Page 6

THE OLD PARTY BIAS

The wrath of one of the members of the Reform party against the Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward his no-confidence motion is suggestive. He attacked him for wasting time over a matter which can only b© decided in one way. Now, if this means •anything, it moans that but for the no-confidence motion there would have been no debate on the Address-in-Reply. But the fact is that, confidence or no-confidence, there is always a debate on the Address. A debate is the rule—with almost no exception—and for a reason well recognised in Parliamentary practice. Tho Address is the time-honoured opportunity for members to air their grievances, make their complaints, put forward their suggestions. Mr Newman’s tirade implies that without a no-confidence motion the Address is never debated'. To realise the absurdity of such an impression one has only to’look back over the records, which .are full of long, wearisome debates on the Address, in some of which nearly every member of the House spoke, without the incitement of any crucial motion of amendment. Mr Newman’s tirade, if it has any force at all, is a weighty criticism, of the Jong debates on tho Address to which the Reform party contributed freely and abundantly .during its years of opposition. Why should this Columbus of Parliamentary practice arise to-day with the discovery that tho man who causes a debate on the Address i«s.a waster? The Speaker has told the listening House that every member is free to talk about anything under the sun in speaking to the amendment, it is true. But it k true, also, that in speaking to the motion for tho Address every member has tho same privilege. And it is not likoly that members who avail themselves of the privilege once will wont to do so again. At all events, when any of them do it twice it will bo time to blame Mr MacDonald. Then, why this fury against him now, when the probability is that the debate will not bo long beyond the usual custom? Is it necessary to remind Mr Newman, that the amendment, which will probably not add an. hour to the ordinary length of the debate on the Address, will, whatever* else it may or may not effect, force the Reform party to a full-dress parade; compel it to abandon all noparty pretence, and take the field as tho Reform party, using its majority at the back of the Government? The amendment will make for honest party politics. Is that tho reason for Mr Newman’s wrath ? Certainly his ostensible reason of waste of time does not hold water.