PARLIAMENTARY MANNERS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1514, 9 August 1912, Page 4

PARLIAMENTARY MANNERS.

The unedifying exchanges which passed between the member for Avon and the member for'Motueka in the House of Representatives on Wednesday evening servo to emphasise the loss the House has suffered in dignity and manners in recent years. Both Mr. Russell and Mn. R. M'Kenzie are ex-Ministers of tho Crown and have for a number of years occupied seats in Parliament, and might, in ordinary circumstances, have been expected to set an example to younger and less experienced members. Their outbursts of ill-temper and their abusive references to one another probably constitute the worst. exhibition of the kind ever witnessed in the New Zealand Parliament, and it iB just as well that members should realise what this sort of thing must eventually lead to. No doubt, at the present time, some of the members on the Opposition side of the House are smarting keenly under a sense of disappointment arising from their loss of office, and the relations between certain of them are far from harmonious. But they might well spare Parliament their personal recriminations. It would bs much to their own advantage if they settled their little differences in private, and would thus remove the possibility of Parliament being degraded, not merely in the eyes of the people of New Zealand, but in those of the | people of other countries. While we are on this subject we cannot refrain from again expressing the opinion that the present Speaker ot the House of Representatives is far too generous in his interpretation of the Standing Orders of the House and in the enforcement of order. Sir Arthur Guinness is inclined to allow nn amount df latitude to. members which' is liable to encourage them to overstep the boundaries of decorum. It is quite possible that he may not observe many of the departures from the rules of the House, but they are of such frequent occurrence that it is quite time they were firmly checked. Sir Joseph Ward, a few days ago, very properly directed attention to the frequent practice of members, when in debate, referring to other members as "you," instead of addressing them as "the member" for such-and-such an electorate. This is a small thing in itself, but apart from the confusion which it is likely to eauso to readers of Hansard, who cannot know who the particular "you" referred to is, there is a personal note about such a form of address which is liable to rrovoke recrimination and which certainly does not add to the tone of debate. Another slackness which has grown up is the manner in which members flagrantly ignore the Standing Orders by getting in a personal explanation under the pretext of rising to a point of order. This is constantly happening. Moreover, a still more frequent flouting of the Standing Orders is the practice of making what amounts to a fresh speech under the pretence of making a personal explanation. ' A stricter interpretation of the Standing Orders would benefit everyone—it would raise the tone of debate; diminish the possibility of such unpleasant scenes as occurred in the House on Wednesday evening; and promote the progress of business. It is not a very long step from such language as the House was regaled with l>y Messrs. Russell and M'Kenzie, to blows.