THE WEEK IN THE HOUSE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20838, 21 September 1937, Page 6

THE WEEK IN THE HOUSE

OPPOSITION LEADER’S FINE SPEECH ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE (From Our Own Correspondent) WELLINGTON, September 30. The work of Parliament commenced in earnest during the week just ended, but so far the House of Representatives has found it difficult to break away from the somewhat artificial atmosphere Inevitably associated with the opening of a session. The Address-in-Rcply debate, which opened this week, is regarded as an essential feature of Parliamentary procedure, but, in spite of that, it invariably gives the Impression that the speakers are engaged only in political shadow-sparring until they can get really to grips over actual legislative proposals. The working week in the House opened with the passage on Tuesday of the first Imprest Supply Bill of the session. Perhaps because of the full use of radio broadcasting, and the fact that comparatively few members of the House have developed a microphone technique, the debate on this measure was not particularly impressive. One could not help thinking that Members of both sides of the House can gererally put forward their arguments more brightly and possibly more convincingly when they are not bothered with thoughts of a huge, unseen audience. It is quite possible that the Opposition scored to some extent through the tactics followed by their leader, the Hon. A. Hamilton, who opened the discussion by seeking information from the Government on the extent to which it has applied the public credit in financing its various undertakings and on the manner of that application. The use of the public credit is something hardly capable of lucid explanation within the compass of a brief speech, and, although the Prime Minister, Mr Savage, gave an informative survey of his Government’s financial activities, his remarks had perforce to be general rather than particular. After that, the Opposition appeared to gain something of a debating advantage. Mr W. J. Lyon (Government, Waitemata) defended Labour legislation in a speech more notable for manner of delivery than matter of argument, but it was left to Mr J. A. Lee, Parliamentary Under-secretary in charge of the Ministry of Housing, to rally the Government’s forces with a speech of hearty, swash-buckling rhetoric. Members Lose Interest It was noticeable that, as soon as the speeches were “off the air,” shortly after 11 o’clock, the majority of Members seemed to lose interest in the proceedings. Consequently no great resistance was offered to the passage of

the Bill, and the sitting which at one stage had appeared likely to extend until the small hours of the morning, finished shortly after midnight. The next evening saw the opening of the Address-in-Repiy debate, with the speeches of the mover, Mr J. Thorn (Government, Thames), and the seconder, Mr J. G. Barclay (Government, Marsden). In keeping with tradition, both wore full evening dress for the occasion, and they were accorded the compliment of crowded galleries, and rounds of applause from both sides of the House at the conclusion of their speeches. Mr Thorn’s effort was a particularly fluent exposition of the Government’s achievements and future aims, blended with trenchant criticism of the Opposition, but Mr Barclay was inclined to be somewhat laborious in the development of his argument in support of higher taxation and the guaranteed price scheme. Feature of Debate The outstanding feature in the debate so far was undoubtedly the speech made on Thursday evening by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hamilton. It was the first important speech made in the House by Mr Hamilton since his assumption of the leadership and he rose to the occasion not with brilliance, but with that Scottish thoroughness and determination which is so typical of him and which can be so much more effective than verbal fireworks. Mr Hamilton sounded the genuine note of political battle •in the presentation of his eight-point amendment of noconfldence in the Government, and considerable amusement when the Prime Minister quietly asked if he could “have a copy of the charges against him.” Mr Hamilton rated the Government soundly for an hour and was in a more vigorous mood than the House has seen him for some time. The task of replying to him fell to the Minister of Education, the Hon. p. Fraser, and the audience in the galleries and the listeners before their firesides heard another Scot take up the political cudgels. One could hardly imagine two Scotsmen more dissimilar in the presentation of their arguments, and in their manner of debate—Mr Hamilton deliberate and steady, worrying every point, and Mr Fraser, biting and incisive, with a rapier thrust of sarcastic phrasing. Actually the Minister’s

task was by far the harder, as he had to reply practically extempore to a well-prepared and well-reasoned speech, and altogether the two Scots provided an interesting two hours of clan warfare in purely verbal fashion. Dull and Lifeless In comparison, Friday’s speeches in the debate were somewhat dull and lifeless. Very few fresh arguments were advanced, but the sins of omission atid commission by both the present Government and its predecessor were paraded for five and a-half weary hours. So far only five Opposition members have spoken, and it seems almost certain that the debate will continue throughout the coming week. The only other feature of last week’s business was the introduction by Go-vernor-General’s message on Thursday of the amendment to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act designed to reaffirm the Industrial status of clerical and other workers which was recently challenged by the Court of Appeal. It is not yet known when the measure will be debated in the House, but a Bill re-enacting the provisions of the Fair Rents Act of last session will have to make its appearance shortly and will have to be passed before the end of the present month when the existing legislation expires. i