Political Thunder

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 407, 16 July 1928, Page 8

Political Thunder

An Uninspiring Noise

(THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, To-day. ONE morning this week, probably on Tuesday or \\ ednesday, a solemn little procession, consisting of the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the mover and seconder of the Address-in-Reply, will move from Parliament Buildings to Government House. The flowing robes of Mr. Speaker, the top hat and burnished mace of the Sergeant-at-Arms, will give the delegation an air of ceremony, appropriate to its function of presenting to the Governor-General the parchment document on which is set out Parliament's respectful reply to his Speech from the Throne.

In cold fact the presentation of the Address-in-Reply is but a formality, a picturesque gesture faithfully observed. The real business of the Ad-dress-in-Reply was concluded in the House on Friday evening, when a debate that had lasted for a week and a-half came to an abrupt end. an end that came so quietly and peacefully as to be almost an anti-climax to the verbal fervour that had preceded it. Having “noted with interest” the subjects discussed by his Excellency on opening day, and having evaded with much ease attachment of a codicil stating that the Government had lost the confidence of the people, the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, has cleared the decks for action, and can now set about the practical and useful busines of the session. This will begin next week with dis-

cussion of a number of reports, o. which far the most important is the Samoan report, on which the Labour Party has already intimated it will have a good deal to say. Legislation, including the Film Quota Bill, determining the proportion of British to foreign films to be admitted to the country, will also be set in motion. SIDELIGHTS ON THE DEBATE Of the debate that has just concluded, little is left to say that the members have not said themselves. For the most part it was an uninspiring sort of business, lacking even the redeeming fire of keen party feeling. Very rarely was there any suggestion of heat in the passages between the opposing parties. Precedent did not suggest that the little coterie of Liberal and Nationalist members would desert their principle of always voting for the Government, in preference to the Labour Party, on a no-confidence division. But the difference between this and other debates was that the

intermediate members of the House devoted more time than formerly to a dissection of the Government. In contrast with other years, they practically left the Labour Party alone. One or two. such as Mr. Horn and Mr. Buddo, avoided party issues. Others, like Mr. T. E. Y. Seddon, had nothing to say. But there were left Messrs. Veitch, Atmore, Ransom and Forbes, who were loud in their criticism of the Government. ' Mr. Atmore was the only one of these who went into the lobby with the Labour minority in voting for the no-confidence ament 1 ment. In favour of Mr. Forbes it could be said that he deprecated Labour’s policy of making political capital out of the national misfortune of unemployment; but it was strange, as Mr. R. McKeen immediately afterwards pointed out, to find both Mr. Veitch and Mr. Ransom voting in support of a party which both had criticised so severely.

More than ever it was made clear, during the debate, that.the LiberalNationalist section is in an unenviable position. Reform and Labour, 60 strong, united to assail it with withering scorn. More than once a Reformer had no sooner finished a criticism of the Liberal remnant than a Labour man rose and followed suit. FEW HiGH POINTS Though there were few occasions when the debate touched high points in logic, force or eloquence, there were compensations in the form of lively exchanges, while there were interludes in which real humour was occasionally displayed. Nothing of great moment was produced on the opening night of the debate, though Mr. Allen Bell trotted forth a useful ally in Balaam’s ass. which in the closing stages reappeared in the hands of Mr. F. N. Bartram, who is either intensely familiar with the Scriptures, or had given them a close study in the interim. As the debate wore on there were a number of colourless speeches, principally devoted to thinly disguised electioneering, and some which were memorable. Among these were those of the Hon. A. E>. McLeod, who never faltered in his bluff,' downright vindication of Reform’s land policy; Mr. J. A. McCombs, well known as Labour’s leading mathematician; and Messrs. Parry, Downie Stewart, Savage, D. Jones, J. A. Nash, H. Atmore, R. A. Wright, Lee and Bartram. Two of the best speeches of the whole’ debate, viewed from the nonparty angle, were those of the Hon. R. A. Wright and Mr. J. A. Nash, on the last evening. These two are among the most capable speakers on the Reform side of the House. Until the very last moment it was expected that the Prime Minister, once the amendment had been disposed of, would have a few words to say, in answer to criticism of the unemployment situation, before the motion itself was finally put to the vote. This expectation was not fulfilled.

In all, 40 speakers contributed to tile debate, and nearly all of tlieni spoke for at least an hour, while a few for whom extensions were granted enjoyed nearly an hour and a-half in which to air their views. Others, like Messrs. Lysnar, Buddo and Ransom, found their allotted hour inadequate and they were still trying to get a last word in when the Speaker ordered them to sit down.