PRESTIGE OF THE HOUSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21773, 12 October 1932, Page 9

PRESTIGE OF THE HOUSE

RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMBERS COMMENT ON COMMISSION’S REPORT. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October 11. “We have heard recently a good deal of abuse of members of Parliament by the press and by individuals, and without wishing to comment on that I think it *is time wo apked ourselves whether we have'done our part in building up the prestige of the House,’* said Mr Ansell at the opening of his speech in the House to-cjay. , “I am going .to instance,” he went on, “the denunciation by members of this House of members of the National Expenditure Commission, not’ because of their work but because their opinions do not coincide with what we think. They have been abused personally. If we do not agree with their recommendations our duty is to criticise them, and not to undertake personal abuse of this kind. If we are so sensitive of what is said about ourselves we should look over the other side of the fence and examine what we are doing. The prestige of Parliament depends on our own acts and' the assumption of responsibility that rests with us. -' .

“The report of the commission was presented to the House at the request of the Government,” he added. “ The picture is not a very pleasing one, but it is a true one, and if we don’t like the oil painting they present us with, then we have got to put it right ourselves. They show up some of'our shortcomings and we shall have to right them. I have wondered sometimes. whether in addition to criticism of administrations of title past the report of the commission is not an indictment of democracy.” A member: We will have to alter the Parliamentary machine. Mr Ansell: Well, we may have to do something in that direction.