The Wanganui Chronicle AND RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1901. THE SESSIONAL TIME-WASTER.

Wanganui Chronicle, 26 August 1901, Page 2

The Wanganui Chronicle AND RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1901. THE SESSIONAL TIME-WASTER.

Thi sessional time-waster, otherwise known as the Financial Debate, was commenced in the House of Representatives on Friday evening last. How long the time-honoured and costly farce will occupy the Parliamentary stage it is of course impossible to say. It may, however, be safely predicted that it will last just so long as it suits, the convenience of Ministers, and no longer. Under normal conditions the socalled Financial Debate is capable of but little justification, but under the present condition of the New Zealand House of Representatives a lengthy discussion under cover of the Budget can only rightly bs described as an absolutely ludicrous and indefensible waster of time and money. No practical good to the countiy can possibly result from it. The overwhelming Government majority will stand by the statements of their political chief and swallow his figures unquestionably. Their business is not to debate the finances of the colony, but to believe what they are told, to accept the Ministerial pronouncement as mii fallible, and to ridicule as far as possible j tne comments and criticisms of the fragmentary Opposition. In short, the whole sorry business resolves itself into talk, talk, nothing but talk, and for the most part very poor talk at that. As a rule the majority of members contrive to indulge in voluble references to every conceivable subject under the sun save and except those upon which the debate is ostensibly held. And after all, the fact is not so very surprising. All that can possibly be said for. and against the figures and projiosals of the Budget can be, and obviously is, said by the leading and principal speakers, and it follows that the rank and file must either indulge in weary reiteration or introduce new and irrelevant matter. If the time absorbed in the debate only affected the members, there would be no occasion for protesting. So long as the members enjoyed the fun, they could talk till their tongues ached for all the country need care. The patient and ■long-suffering taxpayer is, however, apt to remember that Parliamentary sittings are costly luxuries, and that every day wasted in profitless discussion represents so many pounds of public money squandered. In point of fact, the Financial Debate has come to be regarded as nothing more nor less than a fill-up—a plaything for members, intended to keep them occupied while-; Ministers are engaged in preparing the serious sessional tasks. Members know full well that every important detail of the Statement will come before them again, in a'formv more calculated to invite definite discussion. Consequently they are not slow to avail themselves of the full license allowed by the debate and treat the Budget merely as a peg upon which to hang.their more or less mature opinions upon, anything and everything, from poultry-breed-ing to bull-baiting. If the Financial Debate was in the slightest degree likely to result in providing the people with a plain, unvarnished statement of the true financial position of the country no one would begrudge the time it takes or the money it costs. Under existing conditions such a result cannot bs hoped for. The Premier holds the key to the puzzle, and until he volunteers the solution or drops the key the people must be content to remain in th« dark. As we have said, it is impossible to foretell how long this yearns debate will last. It may onco more fizzle out quickly and unexpectedly, but if the lengthy adjournment of the Legislative Council is to be taken as an omen we are in for fully a week of financial —so-called—-claptrap. •