PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 81, Issue 7252, 15 September 1950, Page 4

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

LAST WEEK’S ACTIVITIES LIFELESS FINANCIAL DEBATE Languishing interest in the lifeless financial debate, which has now extended over two sitting weeks, was quickened temporarily in the House of Representatives last week with a very good speech by the Minister of External Agairs, Mr Doidge (states the political correspondent of the Dominion). His comprehensive survey of the international situation, with the implications it contained for New Zea- ( ' land, was the week’s only outstanding contribution to what has been a particularly dull and desultory discussion. Admittedly, Mr Doidge’s portfolio enabled him to speak authoritatvely on a subject of great public importance—that of foreign affairs; but even if allowance is made for this considerable advantage it must be conceded that the Minister made the most of his opportunity and lifed the debate to a loftier plane. The Opposition, together with the Government, rated the Minister’s speech highly, and the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Fraser, said that if Mr Doidge spoke along the same lines in the overseas discussions he is to attend this month he would have the support of the whole Dominon. Mr Fraser’s generous and spontaneous remarks, which took the House completely by surprise just before it adjourned on Friday for the weekend, made a deep impression, particularly on Government members. Mr Fraser spoke as an elder statesman of the Empire who probably realised better than anyone the significance of the mission Mr Doidge is about to undertake. Most of the other speakers in the financial debate last week were content to carry water from the parish pump. To the credit of two new members, Mr E. H. Halstead (Government, Tamaki) and Mr J. Rae (Government, Roskill), they made some constructive suggestions for taxation" reform, but the other speeches were in the main largely a repetition of what has already been said in earlier debates this session. The financial debate will be continued when the House resumes- It is known that some members do not intend to speak, but even then it seems doubtful if it can finish this week unless some arrangement is come to between the parties to curtail the discussion. Many of the leading members of the Opposition, including its leader. Mr Fraser, have still to speak, but so far little has been said from the Opposition benches to cause much anxiety to the Prime Minister, Mr Holland, when he rises to reply to the debate in his capacity as Minister of Finance. Probably the toughest criticism he will have to answer will be to explain why this Government has abandoned its pre-election promise to increase the age benefit by 2s 6d a week for each year application for the benefit was delayed beyond the normal retiring age of 60 years. Once the debate is over the House will be able to get to grips with the departmental votes and the balance of the legislative programme. Why This Delay ? What is the reason for the delay in announcing the membership of the constitutional reform committee of the House which is to endeavour to find a workable alternative to the liquidated Legislative Council ? Is it because the Opposition is unwilling to nominate its quota of members to serve on the committee ?

Obviously something is holding up the appointment of the committee. It is stated in the lobbies tha a subsantial number of Labour members take the view that the Opposition should decline to be associated with the work of the committee. With the abolition of the Council they apparently see their own wishes fulfilled——but at the same time they contend that is to say, they approve abolition that the responsibility for the decision to end the Council is not theirs, but the Government’s. It appears they also argue that if there is to be no alternative that also is the responsibility of the Government. The scope of the legislation already introduced to provide for Saturday polling in local body elections may be further extended to provide for postal voting. This has not hitherto applied to locol body polling, but the Government has been impressed by representations that it has had to allow postal voting. An admission that Mir A. McLagan (Opposition, Riccarton) probably “ knows more about the tenancy law than many lawyers ” was made by the Minister in charge of the State Advances Corporation, Mr Marshall, in the House last week. Coming from a lawyer and political opponent, it was praise indeed, and carried much more weight than if said by a layman or party colleagues. Mr Marshall’s remark was well deserved, and the same observation could no doubt be made of Mr McLagan’s knowledge of industrial law. As Minister of Labour and Mines in the last Government, he gave the most concise and lucid explanations of the Bills he introduced, and many of them were highly technical and involved, such as the Coal Act of 1948. He set a perfect example in lucidity which could well have been followed by many of his feilow Ministers, and can be accepted generally a sa guide. Short Circuit A neat method of short-circuiting the intervention of Mr Speaker to enable him to say something unparliamentary was adopted by the Chief Government Whip, M’r A. S. Sutherland (Hauraki). Criticising some aspect of the Labour Government’s land sales policy, he said: “ I once described it as legalised theft, and had to withdraw, so I had better not say it now.” This almost equals the ingenuity of another member a few years ago who was criticising a fellow legislator for attempting to extricate himself from some unguarded statement he had made. “ He would use a niblick to get out of a bad lie,” said the member.