PROCEEDINGS AT OPENING OF HOUSE NOT EXCITING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18629, 5 December 1928, Page 4

PROCEEDINGS AT OPENING OF HOUSE NOT EXCITING.

A DISAPPOINTINGLY MATTER-OF-FACT AIR ABOUT THE BUSINESS.

(Special to the " Star.”) WELLINGTON, December 4. Picture to yourself a House literally seething with excitement, members all in their seats long before the appointed hour, eager, excited, talkative, restless; messages; the Prime Minister uneasy’, nervous, depressed; the leader of the Opposition buoyant, smiling, triumphant; the leader of the Labour Party cynical, superior; the Clerk of Parliament, calm, imperturbable, as befits his neutral, dignified honourable office.

All this was what the House was not when the bells rang at 2.30 to-day for the meeting of Parliament. Of excitement there was never a trace. Members drifted into the chamber as if the House had been in session for months, took their seats lazily, nodded to one another complacently and awaited events with the utmost calmness. If there was any’ nervousness it was not apparent. The Prime Minister entered briskly’, smiling pleasantly as he greeted his friends. Sir Joseph Ward came more slowly, pausing on his way to his seat to pass' the time of day with a Labourite. There were a few subdued jokes. One or two members crossed the floor on handshaking missions, and then every’one settled down to await the coming of Black Rod. There was a disappointingly matter-of-fact air about the whole business, which continued after the members returned from hearing the opening commission read in the Legislative Council Chamber, and persisted through the swearing-in of members and the election of the Speaker. At no stage was there an incident to stir the interest of the crowded galleries, and for all the movement there was the House might have been meeting under normal conditions at the normal time. Parliament, of course, rarely rises to its opportunities, and notoriously the great moments come when they are least expected, but the dulness of today’s proceedings was a sore disappointment to the galleries. In the circumstances one could only' turn one’s attention to the new distribution of members in the Chamber.

On either side of the Speaker’s chair are twelve benches, seating twenty-four members. Thirty-two seats are provided in the cross benches, sixteen on each side of the gangway’. To the right of the Speaker sat the attenuated Reform group, four of its members assigned seats in the cross benches beside the left wing of the Labour Party'. To the Speaker’s left were the United members, eight of whom had to rub shoulders with Labour members in the cross benches. Labour distributed itself on the cross benches facing the Speaker.

To the right were chiefly well-known faces. Mr Coates, as spruce as ever, had his accustomed seat w’ith Mr Downie Stewart beside him. Mr Young and Mr Wright Were to his left. Sir Maui Pomare and Mr Williams to his right. Three new faces only appeared in this group, Mr Ansell from Chalmers, Mr Hall from Hauraki, Mr Massey from Manakau. Curiously enough none of the three will add materially to the weight of the House, however solid their contributions to the debates may* be. On the Labour benches Mr Barnard, Mr Chapman and Mr Carr are the newcomers, and again one remarks an absence of avoirdupois. On the Opposition benches the Southern Maori member, Mr Makitanara, provides weight and Mr Taverner, Mr Mr Donald M’Dougall, and Mr Bodkin will lend useful weight in the tug-of-war. Mr Poison has height, if not breadth, and so has Mr Munns, but Mr Fletcher and Mr Black are small and epaie. Mr Rushworth is on the spare side. Mr Broadfoot below the a\*erage height and Mr Hawke, Mr Healey’, Mr Jenkins. Mr Clinkard, and Mr McDonald are all in good athletic trim, if an absence of surplus tissue is any’ guide As a whole the members are quite a good looking team, though the top lighting of the chamber does not show them at their best on a bright summer afternoon, and they are evidently workers. One is tempted to single out Mr Poison, Mr Donald, Mr Broadfoot, Mr Fletcher, Mr Bodkin and, perhaps, Mr Black as distinctly studious types, though Mr Black has the face of a keen debater and a bright speaker. Mr Chapman, if looks are a guide, will be a useful speaker in debate, and one will expect sound, practical comment from Mr Tavener and Mr Bodkin. Perhaps, too, Mr Broadfoot will shine in debate, though one imagines him to be rather an enthusiast on special subjects. Mr Jenkins has a good wide outlook and a bright eye, and he will miss little that matters.

It is, perhaps, unwise to attempt to judge men on their faces, but the standard of the new members is obviously high, and the old Parliamentary hands are prophesying interesting times when the House really- settles down to work.