THE DIGNITY OF PARLIAMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 264, 8 November 1945, Page 4

THE DIGNITY OF PARLIAMENT

fTOR upwards of three-quarters of an hour on Tuesday night members of the House of Representatives were engaged in the task of ensuring maintenance of the dignity of Parliament. By the time the incident was closed by Mr. Speaker listeners-in must have been satisfied that, come what might, dignity was certain to be maintained, though at times they might have wondered whether any dignity remained to be lost. The incident which precipitated the lengthy procedure of the summoning of Mr. Speaker by the Chairman of Committees, Mr. R. McKeen, and the subsequent ordering of the member for Waitomo from the Chamber until he had withdrawn a remark and apologised serves to emphasise that dignity can be maintained as much by tact as by authority. Mr. Broadfoot endeavoured to discuss a matter which, the Chairman of Committees ruled, should have been raised earlier. Mr. Broadfoot believed that the ruling was prompted by the Minister of Rehabilitation and felt that the Minister was, through the chairman’s ruling, endeavouring to avoid discussion. Whatever Mr. Broadfoot's sense of injustice, his remark to the chairman was discourteous and his attitude not in keeping with the dignity of Parliament, He made full amends later by his withdrawal of the remark and his apology to the chairman. Much can be excused a man who apologises even when he feels that he has a just grievance. It is the duty of every member of the House of Representatives to obey the rulings of the Chairman of Committees, and to sustain him in his office and in the carrying out of his duties. It is also the duty of the chairman to maintain his authority. But it is equally important that the chairman should never allow himselt to be used by either one side or by the other nor should he allow any circumstance to even give colour to his having been so used. A biassed chairman would forfeit respect and soon lose control of the assembly over which he presides. Mr. McKeen could have lessened the whole incident by the ex vise of more tact than he displayed on this occasion, but instead endeavouring to minimise the incident and close the breach he xe.t it incumbent on him to send for Mr. Speaker. In this he was technically correct, but it appeared from the radio presentation of the debate that the tae which was required was not present on this occasion. The incident could not have been allowed to pass, but the matter seemed to have gained in importance during the development of the debate and was revived in the form of something near to a heresy hunt. The incident perhaps was not one of first-rank importance, but the length of time taken up must have seemed to listeners-in dis proportionate when compared with the nature of business members are assembled to discuss and the high cost involved in the functioning of Parliament. Parliament would suffer less loss of dignity if it lost less time when dealing with such incidents. But listeners would probably not get as much entertainment.