PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21774, 13 October 1932, Page 10

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

PROCESS OF SELECTION SEVERAL COMPLAINTS VENTILATED. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October 12. Several complaints that suitable members bad been omitted from various select committees were ventilated in the. House of Representatives to-day. “May I ask by what process those committees are selected ? ” asked Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames) when the personnel of the Defence Committee was submitted. “ Regarding this particular committee I have no personal feeling, except to say that I think I am the senior military member in the House, but I have been left off the committee this time although I was previously a member.. When I first came into the House I was asked on what committees I would like to serve, but I am led to believe that nowadays even Ministers do not know what members are to be on their committees. I believe the* Whips do that. Mr W. E. Barnard (Napier): The Whips have let you down. Mr Samuel: I have explained there is nothing personal and I am surprised at the lion, member’s ungenerous remark. He is not usually ungenerous although he is sometimes, stupid. air Speaker ordered the withdrawal of the stupidity allegation. air Samuel: I will say he is sometimes a little dull, and this is one of the occasions. When one notices on the Defence Committee members who have not seen service while members who were on service are not included one wonders what is being done. lam not suggesting I am being penalised for anything I have done, but possibly I am too sympathetic with the returned soldiers.

air W. J. Jordan (Mamikau) expressed surprise at the omission of such a useful member as air Samuel.

Mr Forbes said the personnel of the comraittes were chosen as nearly as possible so as to allow members to dovetail their meetings. However, when such a matter as the present ’was raised he would like to see if he could get over the difficulty. v “ I wonder whether the question of sympathy does enter, into the selection,” said Mr W. J. Poison (Stratford). “I can claim similar experience to Mr Samuel in connection with , the Lands Committee. I had a clash with the Minister in connection with the claims of men and now find myself off the committee, not I hope in consequence of that. The responsible Minister said he had nothing to do with the selection. The names were put in front of him and he naturally acquiesced.” Rising to a point of order Mr Forbes denied that he had said members were not included in certain committees because they were too sympathetic. M? Poison: Did you not refer to the fact that giving effect to all the recommendations would cost one million and a-half, pounds. v Mr' Forbes: I made reference to the length of the sittings and the difficulties of members attending all the committees of which they were members, but I dp not intend to be misrepresented by the hon. member..

Mr D. M'Dougall (Mataura) asked that Mr Samuel should replace him on the Defence Committee, and that was agreed to. Mr Samuel expressed his thanks for the graceful act. When the Mines Committee was under consideration Mr R. Semple (Wellington East) said that four men who had been practical'miners now had a seat in the House but none had been included on the committee. He suggested that Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central)* who had previously been on the com.mittee, should'again be included. ' Mr Forbes said he would try to make that arrangement. Another complaint was made when the Agricultural Committee was under review. “ I have been left off the committee, but I do not object to that,” said Mr J. A. MacPherson (Oamaru). “ However, there seems to be only about one agriculturist on the committee, and I think more men who have given their lives to practical farming should be included.” However, no steps were taken to revise the personnel. POWERS OF COMMITTEES 9 PRESENT SYSTEM CRITICISED RECOMMENDATIONS OFTEN OVERRULED. (From Ouk Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October 12. Further criticisms of , the institution of Parliament, levelled in this case at the limited powers possessed by Select Committees of the House, was expressed by Mr H. G. R.,Mason (Auckland Suburbs) to-day when formal motions setting up committees were before the House of Representatives. “We know that Parliament comes in for a good deal of adverse criticism, much of it ill-informed,” he said, “but at the same time that does not excuse the House from making its proceedings real and effective.” Mr Mason claimed that the present manner of setting up committees had not the value which the public was induced to think it had. The usefulness of committees was very largely determined by what was done by the Government in regard to the committees’ recommendations. The committees went very carefully into petitions," but members of the Cabinet, who did not even see the evidence which induced the recommendations, passed judgment, often in ignorance of the relevant circumstances. Could it be urged that such a procedure was wise or even honest? Petitioners should be made to" understand the illusory nature of , the procedure. Mr Mason went on to say that the committees did not always represent the relative strengths of the parties, and a few sessions ago, when the Government party had Only one-third of the membership of the House, Goverpraent members were in a majority on all committees. Agaip, it often happened that several committees met at the same time, and members could not attend all the meetings. Ho suggested that the membership should be reduced and that no member should serve on more than two committees, particularly as Wednesdays and Thursdays were the only convenient meeting days. “ I don’t think it can be said that committee proceedings partake of anything of a party nature,” Mr Forbes said in replying. Regarding the recommendations the Government had to consider the question of finance. A return had been made of committee recommendations during a recent session, and it was found that if they gave effect to all the favourable recommendations they would need £1,500,000’. “ I know members find a real difficulty in attending all meetings,” said Mr Forbes, “ and I suggest that the chairman should try to cut down the length of proceedings so that all members will be able to spare the time to remain throughout the sitting. If the size of the committees were reduced difficulty would probably be found in securing a quorum. That is why there are usually 10 members on committees. I suggest to members that they should not hear non-essential evidence which is often heard out of kindness of heart. Unless Mr Mason can suggest an alternative to the present committee system I think we will have to carry on with this method, at least for this session.”