THE HOUSE

Southland Times, Issue 21849, 28 October 1932, Page 7

THE HOUSE

MEMBER’S COMMENTS PROCEDURE AND PROGRESS TOO MUCH TALK (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, October 27. Some means by which Parliament in procedure and progress could be moulded nearer to the heart’s desire were suggested by Mr W. P. Endean (C. Parnell), in his speech on the financial debate late this afternoon. Mr Endean skirted delicately the grounds of privilege and his forensic skirts were unsullied. The procedure of the House, he said, was peculiar. He approached the subject of how it could be improved with a certain amount of trepidation for he knew he could be put in a dungeon cell if he infringed the laws of the House. However, he wished to make it perfectly clear that in his remarks he intended to make no personal reflections on any member whatsoever, but merely to give suggestions for improvement of the method of carrying on the business of the House. According to his fresh political mind under the present system the country was governed by a Cabinet of 10 men who, if their under secretaries were capable, could not go very far wrong. The ordinary members of the House acted the parts of firemen and were there to put out any sudden political conflagrations that might arise in the House. Mr F. Langstone (L., Waimarino): How’s your hydrant? The Opposition came in for severe criticism from Mr Endean. It put on, he said, during long protracted debates 24 or 25 records to the same tune. There was a storm of Labour laughter and interjections at this stage, but Mr Endean was unperturbed. Committee Shortcomings. “The honourable gentlemen over there,” he said, “have so much to say that it is a pity they will not let another member make his speech, Perhaps it’s their manners. At least we’ll say it is.” He then dealt with shortcomings of the committee work as done by the House. Members did not get a full grip of the evidence in the cases before the committees, he said, and to that end he would suggest that typewritten copies of all evidence be made. This was the practice in courts of law and better results would be obtained. As it was, members did not know the full facts. Mr Endean struck a blow on the cause of less verbiage when he criticized the prolixity of proceedings. Debates were long drawn out, he said. It did not follow that because the procedure of Parliament was an evolution of democracy discussions should be unduly protracted. In England two days only were allowed for the Address in Reply with capable speakers chosen from the various sides of the House. Yet in New Zealand this year there had been two sessions and two addresses in reply, each taking about three weeks. Proceedings were hig-gledy-piggledy. , “You start with the Budget,” he said, "and then have a discussion on the Ottawa Statement. Then the I.C. and A. Amendment with nothing finished at all, so that you are going back to various things all the time.” He compared the procedure to a farmer trying to do several jobs at once and being thoroughly muddled. ‘ “I regard politics as a very poor game,” he said. “I’ve played many games of football with a referee and whistle—that is not to say, Mr Speaker, that I do not appreciate the dignified manner in which you control the House. However, in football if you get a painful kick that is not seen you keep smiling, but what about this vile whispering campaign that is carried on outside this flouse? You don’t find anyone on the Opposition benches to deny rumours. We all know what is being said about one member of this House. It is utterly untrue and it is a shame that such rumours taking away a man’s character are circulated.”

Space in Hansard. Hansard next received attention and Mr Endean wanted to know why the pages of this journal should be used by members to talk to theii’ electors. If each of the members were allotted so much space in Hansard it would be better and the people would send down thinkers and not talkers. Mr R. Semple (L., Wellington East): You’re neither. A Labour member: Autocracy. Mr Langstone: No. Plutocracy. Next Mr Endean tackled the dignity of the procedure, claiming that it ought to be like that of the Privy Council seeing that the Parliament of New Zealand was supposed to be the highest court in the land. He considered that the question of franchise should be investigated. Parliament ought to see what people were fit to vote to get the country out of the financial morass in which it was labouring. (Labour laughter.) He admitted he was treading on dangerous ground. In mentioning the subject of breaches of privilege and the method of dealing with them, however, he believed there should b‘e an alteration. Was there any justification for finding a man guilty before his trial as happened now, he asked. The whole thing was monstrous and opposed to justice. A man accused of breach of privilege should have an opportunity of coming to the bar of the House and stating his case fairly and openly. From the Lower House Mr Endean went to the Legislative Council. He considered that on no account should the Upper House be swept ' away. It was a safeguard and a check against hasty legislation. It had been regarded as a refuge for gentlemen who had served the House well and who were rewarded in old age. The system of appointing members should be altered and not old men but middle-aged or little more than middle-aged should form the Council. These men must have shown ability in their various walks of life. However, Mr Endean had not made up his mind on the subject whether the Council should be elective or not.