Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, FEB. 28, 1933. PARLIAMENTARY METHODS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18025, 28 February 1933, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, FEB. 28, 1933. PARLIAMENTARY METHODS

The sugestion that the work of Parliament should he facilitated bv providing legislation to be effected more by Orders-in-Council and less through the customary channels opens up interesting possibilities, and ones which however objectionable they may seem, may have to be very seriously considered, unless other practical alternatives are discovered. There is not the slightest doubt that under the existing system Parliament, at times, loses a great deal of its jn'estige, members individually are lacking in the dignity which might reasonably be expected, and the country as a whole suiters because of the inevitable inefficiency and added expense. The stonewall over the sales tax measure is quoted as justification for a radical change in procedure, but although this might be the factor immediately responsible the real cause of dissatisfaction is far more deep-seated, and is traceable to developments in political procedure over a long period of years. The duties 'of Parliament to-day aro totally different from those which require to be undertaken when the system was established. With the advance of democracy the sphere of legislation has been greatly enlarged and the functions of the House are infinitely more complex and numerous. In other words, the same old machine is being used to do several times the amount of work which was originally expected of it, and it is not surprising that its efficiency is sometimes questioned. That is the first difficulty. An even more important factor, perhaps, is the unreasonable and unhealthy growth of the party system. Each party, quite understandably, advocates its own particular measures and docs its utmost to obstruct those of its opponents. The result is that instead of Parliament being one body with a common object—the best- in l terosts of the country as a whole—it has become an assembly of two or more rival factions, all fighting against one another ami each seeking means of appeasing its own supporters. The truth of this assertion is made manifest in practically everv debate, for it is almost an established rule that whatever is proposed by the party in power should be opposed by its political adversaries, almost entirely regardless of the merits of the measure. For this belief that the sole duty of the opposition was to oppose, develop the system of obstruction, which, under the stonewall method, has been reduced to an art. At best, it is a senseless practice for it is invariably barren of results; it is not intended to have results, but is used almost solely for the purpose of gaining capital. The sales tax debate is a caso in point. Whatever might be said for or against the measure—and the opponents of it never attempted to say much either for or against it —it was apparent that it was .supported by a largo majority of the House and that it would ultimately become law. That position, if majority rule is to be recognised, should have been accepted, and the only remaining duty of Parliament was to sec that the law, as enacted, was as just and efficient as the combined brains of the House could make it. When the rules of the House are abused as they have been abused, it becomes necessary to make some amendments. That position was realised in England nearly half a' century ago when the closure was introduced. That proving insufficient the guillotine was adopted, and still further means of ensuring progress were discovered in the method of restricting bills to the bare principles of legislation and bringing them into operation by means of Orders-in-Couneil. In other countries, far more drastic steps nave been taken to obviate the abortive methods of Parliamentary government —the straight-out dictatorship in Italy, and the German system of government by presidential decree. It can be sgid without hesitation that none of these steps aro desirable, but it can be said, quite cmphiaically, that unless there is a voluntary chango in Parliamentary procedure one or another of them is inevitable. So far New Zealand has been content with the use of the closure, and it must be .conceded that, in all the circumstances, it has been used most sparingly. The guillotine, which .was England’s next step, has not. vet been mooted, but it is revealed that some members of the Cabinet aro in favor of legislation by Order-in-Council. In many respects this is a most objectionable system, more especially when the Government, as is the case in New Zealand, is far too prone to enforce regulations of almost every description and to interfere with the rights and liberties of the subject. But'above all the objections to this and other possible reforms is the outstanding fact' that something must be done to *

improve the efficiency of the Parliamentary machine which members themselves have so seriously impaired. Before long, the country will have to choose between the continuance of the present system, assisted by measures that will react disadvantageously to the established principles of Parliamentary government, or else submit to reforms of a more or less farreaching nature, notably the divorcement from the Government of many of the responsibilities it has shouldered in recent years, with loss contentious legislation in consequence, the modification, if not the complete elimination, of the disastrous party system, and, perhaps, a substantial reduction in the number of members of the House itself.