COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL “STREAMLINED” PROCEDURE TO BE EXAMINED AGAIN

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31084, 13 June 1966, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL “STREAMLINED” PROCEDURE TO BE EXAMINED AGAIN

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, June 12. Parliamentary procedure is likely to experience further changes after the deliberations of a special Select Committee which wi probably be set up on Tuesday. When on Friday morning the Prime Minister notice of his intention to set up this committee to study the posit ion during the recess and report to Parliament next jeai, there weie n dissentients.

This is the fifth session during which a so-called “streamlined” procedure, for so long advocated by the present Speaker (Sir Ronald Algie), has operated. The report of the previous Select Committee, which was tabled in 1961, brought in several worthwhile innovations—but others have not quite had the effect intended.

No complaints have been made about the shortening of speeches in the formal debates, or about other measures Calculated to speed up business. The new form of the Parliamentary prayer, which opens each sitting, has proved universally acceptable. Difficulties have arisen, however, over two innovations.

Notices of Motion The presentation of notices of motion, designed to gave Members a chance to express views on a specific subject, went out of control from its inception. The standard practice on the opening day of each session has been to flood the Order Paper with alternative notices of praise and blame, directed at Government policy. Most are still undiscussed at the end of a session. Many have been discussed in the past few years, but on no occasion has a vote been taken. They have remained in a “part-heard” condition on the Order Paper until allowed to lapse with other unfinished business at the end of the session.

In the current session there has been no change. Sixteen notices of motion are on the Order Paper already. Two, (one anti-Government, the other anti-Opposition) have been part-heard, and have gone to the bottom of the Order Paper. A simple way for the Select Committee to resolve this impasse while retaining the system would be to put a limit of, say, one hour on the debate concerning each motion, after which a vote could be taken. This would achieve the object of opening subjects to debate, and could even give the opportunity for brighter discussion.. Another innovation which has caused some trouble and loss of time already this session concerns the oral question. Previously, members could rise during formal business on any day and ask a Minister a specific question. The question received the publicity. The answer, printed and circulated a fortnight or more later, rarely received comparable attention. Under the “streamlined” procedure, the questions are first published in the Order Paper. They are formally asked by the Member concerned a few days later, and are replied to immediately by the Minister to whom they are addressed. Provision is made for supplementary questions, to be answered where possible by the Minister. Difficulties have arisen because half an hour each day is allocated for question and answer, and within their time members (notably members of the Opposition) have shown an increasing interest in asking supplementary questions. There is no clear power in the Speaker’s hand to limit the number of supplementary questions. Normally, 10 to 12 questions can be dealt with in the halfhour allocated. At times in the last fortnight, only three or four have been dealt with. One question produced a debate lasting 23 minutes. Mr Holyoake has drawn some Opposition criticism for extending the permissible time in which questions may be fully answered—but has managed to clear the backlog of questions outstanding. In seven working days, the House has disposed of 95 questions—but has taken about double the allotted time to do this.

Some persons suggest that the remedy is in Sir Ronald

Algie's hands; others say that procedure should be reframed to permit only two or three supplementary questions. Adjournment Debate A third innovation which has not lived up to its promise has been absent so far this session, but may return on Tuesday night. This is the Adjournment Debate, which is taken at 10 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays in the absence of a formal debate. On the motion that the House should rise, half an hour is devoted to five-minute speeches on a subject chosen by the Opposition. It is hoped that when it reappears, the Adjournment Debate will be treated less as a spur-of-the-moment assignment than has been the case. Opposition members have a real chance to show teamwork in this type of debate, but in the last two sessions have not made the best of it. In the coming week Opposition members will have several opportunities to excel. On Wednesday afternoon the House will discuss a motion by Mr R. L. Bailey (Opp., Heretaunga) expressing concern at the level of doctors’ clidrßCS. That night, Mr W. A. Fox’s House Buyers’ Protection Bill will have its second reading debate.

These items, of course, will be preludes to the presentation of the Budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr Lake) on Thursday night.