TE AWAMUTU COURIER Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays FRIDAY, 15th OCTOBER, 1948 PROCEDURE IN PARLIAMENT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 77, Issue 6978, 15 October 1948, Page 4

TE AWAMUTU COURIER Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays FRIDAY, 15th OCTOBER, 1948 PROCEDURE IN PARLIAMENT

ONE EFFECT of the Parliamentary broadcast has been to bring the Legislative Chamber nearer to the electorate and to afford the citizen an opportunity of noting both, the procedure and Fhe tone of the popular assembly. But there remains the need for a better and closer appreciation of the Standing Orders and the somewhat peculiar rules not merely for the conduct of debate but for the regulation of the Order Paper. Enough to say that. Parliament is unlike any other institution, and there has to be appreciation of this fact before such a clash as occurred the other evening can be judged. That the incident was unfortunate is widely realised, and that it did not add to the dignity or respect of the House is admitted. But it is not the first occasion for a serious testing of the Standing Orders, and it will not likely be the last. The stone-walling tactics of the past, the tedious manipulation of the party game, the ruse of “ talking out ” a measure all bear evidence that the line of reason is not a guiding Parliamentary rule and that political tactics mean over-much in the conduct of the nation’s business. On this occasion there was some difference of opinion between the definition of a member’s privilege and the ruling of the Speaker, but a very vital principle was being debated. In the background of it all was the report and unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee of the House that

The principle of allowing special interests to be represented on a harbour board is not one that (we are prepared to endorse; Shipowners and payers of dues merely pass their charges on to the general public, and to allow them to dictate policy is quite undemocratic. If such interests are represented then farmers whose produce is shipped and wharf labourers who work on the ■wharf are entitled as such to be represented. The principle is entirely wrong. The principle of democratic elections should be instituted for all seats on harbour boards and representation of shipowners and payers of dues cancelled.

That was a clear and unmistakable recommendation that local bodies—in this instance, harbour boards—should be elected by the people and that the Government should not appoint anyone as sectional representative. So that the remarkable situation arose of one Cabinet Minister and several members of the Government recommending as members of a Select Committee that the rule of the democratic vote be preserved for the people; yet when their own recommendation came before the House they followed a different course and voted for the right of Government appointment. Admittedly the House is not bound to accept a recommendation, but it is peculiar, to say the least, that when members of a Committee unanimously agree, they should disagree when their recommendation is tested. Plainly it suggested the exercise of pressure not only on the Government but on the House itself. Be that as it may, in the background was the vital principle whether the people should elect or the Government appoint the lesser governing bodies. When, therefore, the criticial division was approaching, was it wrong or opposed to the public interest that any elected Parliamentary representative of the people, should advance and uphold what was being put forward as being in the public interest, or was it preferable that the Speaker should rule out as tedious the continuance of debate which did not' allow ready or immediate acceptance of the .Government’s own views. It could be at least conceded that to the limits the Standing Orders allow questions of serious public concern should be debated—that is if the democratic rule is to be preserved and the harshness of the dictatorship avoided.