The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1931. THE FUTILITY OF PARLIAMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 199, 24 August 1931, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1931. THE FUTILITY OF PARLIAMENT

J'HE incapability of the Government and the futility of Par-

liament has been veil advertised by the acceptance of Mr Coates’ motion to set up an inter-party committee to deal with the financial position of the country.

The Government, which has all the data which the departments ean provide, has fashioned its Budget. That Budget represents the Government’s plan to carry on the financing of the activities of the State. Parliament has been discussing public finance for three weeks. Now the House of Representatives adjourns the debate to enable it to discuss what it is engaged in discussing! It is an Alice in Wonderland procedure, and yet, because of the conditions, it is the right thing to do. The politicians have failed in their most important work,

which is supervising the public purse. They have now publicly acknowledged that they don’t know the subject of public finance, that they are incapable of the task and, consequently, the expert is to be called in to provide the capacity necessary to meet the situation. In a limited sense, the Budget is to be depoliticalised; that is the real effect of Mr Coates’ proposal. That the proposal has been accepted by the three parties in the House of Representatives indicates that there are no definite ideas fixed in the minds of the parties. No party is apparently willing to stand or fall by a definite programme, and possibly no party wants to undertake the necessary tasks involved in putting the Dominion’s house in order. Mr Forbes is prepared to give up the task. Mr Coates doesn’t want to take it on under existing conditions, and Mr Holland would have to abandon his Marxian doctrines were Fate unkind enough to present him with office.

The taxing bills, which should be making their appearance shortly, are likely to find insufficient support within the Chamber. Mr W. Downie Stewart sensed this danger from the beginning, and made diplomatic reference to the necessity for an alignment of political support for the necessary financial measures. His advocacy has evidently borne fruit. The politicians felt the need for some outside support for whatever action is to be decided on, and this has compelled the parties to join in a committee whieh shall call in expert assistance. The politician has half capitulated; the rule of the expert is drawing near.

The course of events has justified the Chronicle's criticism of the Budget debate, which was: “The Budget debate has revealed the paucity of the quality of the members of all parties in their ability to approach the essential problem of the present time.” The course of events has also proved the assertion that “What really is wanted to-day is a better class of man to take up public life. Fusion of the two parties will only perpetuate mediocrity.”

Mr Coates’ move, under existing circumstances, is the only possible one to take. The Government’s contemplated taxing bills evidently could not be steered through the House of Representatives. Futile debate cannot go on for ever; some action will have to be taken. What that action shall be Parliament, as now constituted, is incapable of deciding, and Mr Coates’ proposal, which is a half-hearted capitulation of the politician to the expert, offers the politicians a way out of the complicated situation which threatens to limit their functions still further.

Parliamentary Government is to-day on its trial, and in the present situation it has proved itself to be inadequate to the task. Such inadequacy of ability as now obtains will continue to exist so long as the quality of the men returned to Parliament remains at the present low level. It is useless to scold the present politicians for their incapacity; the blame lies more on the shoulders of the electors who selected such men. The chief blame also attaches to the more intelligent and better educated sections of the community, because these fail to take their rightful place in the public life of the community. It is a poor excuse to say that they shrink from the vulgarity attaching to public life. It is not even necessary that these sensitive people should seek public office if such effort offends them so, but there is much more whieh may be done in support of desirable men who are willing to undertake active public life. It is that active support of desirable public men whieh is lacking to-day, and whieh finds its reflex in the futility of Parliament in its dealing with the current problems of our public finance.