The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1912. PRIVILEGE AND WASTED TIME

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1560, 2 October 1912, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1912. PRIVILEGE AND WASTED TIME

One of the'most highly treasured privileges of members of Parliament is the right to raise as a question of 'privilege" any matter rellecting on thomsolves as members or on the conduct of business in the House itself. A question of "privilege" takes precedence over all other business, and until recent times it has always been treated as a matter of extreme seriousness. Of late, however, there has been a tendency to make use of this right to raise the question of privilege to make an opening to air a personal grievance or to discuss a matter which otherwise could not at the moment he brought forward. A few days ago Mr. Isitt attacked This Dominion under cloak of a question of privilege, and then having served his purpose withdrew his motion. Last evening, in order to make an opportunity to reply to the exposures made by the Minister of Finance respecting State Guaranteed Advances, Sir Joseph Ward also attacked The Dominion on, a question of privilege. We, of pourse, have not the slightest objection to the member for Awarua seizing, any occasion on which it pleases him to pass offensive comments on this paper. He has in the past done more injury to himself than to anyone else by his outbreaks, and we are quite indifferent to his naturally biased views concerning ourselves. But it does seem a little curious that a member should be permitted to rise in the House and raise a question of privilege relating to an article published in a newspaper; and then, having taken advantage of the opportunity thus created to reply to the speech ot a Minister made a few nights previously, openly tell the House that he had merely dragged in the newspaper to enable him to serve his purpose. No doubt he was within the Standing Orders of the House, or Mr. Speaker would have rebuked him for his seeming trilling with the privileges of. members. Had Sm Joseph Ward been in his place in the House on Friday evening last wheii Mr. Allen made his exposure of the manner in which State advances to local bodies had been apportioned under the Ward Government, he could then, have made such reply as he was able. But because he . was not in attendance on his duties in Parliament the whole of the ordinary proceedings of the House last opening were blocked by him with this pretence that The Dominion had committed a breach of privilege. Everyone knew quite well that no breach of privilege had been committed, and that the motion moved by tho member for Awarua was merely a peg on which to hang the speech which he should have been in his place to deliver the previous Friday evening. As to the actual result of the tactics pursued bv the member for Awarua, we should think that he was not altogether too well pleased with the effect he created.- He was caught tripping on more than one occasion, and when he came to argue as to, the amount available for advances during the present year he showed a lack of knowledge of his own legislation.which was quite surprising, arid: under the interjections of tho Minister of Finance quickly .abandoned this line of argument. The points of principal interest to the public in this matter of advances under the State Guaranteed Advances Act arc—(l) The extent to which the .richer local bodies were benefited at the expense of the poorer; (2) the manner in which the Continuous Ministry depleted the funds of the Department and committed the State to advances which their successors will have to provide, and which will cripple the power of the new Government for' the time being to satisfy tho demands of local bodies in country districts. The Minister of Finance quoted sufficient facts and figures to make it perfectly clear that tho MasSEY Government has been left with very little to go on with. On September 16 last, the Minister showed, the State was committed to advances totalling £653,700, and the total amount available at that time to meet these commitments and the whole of the applications which may be expected to come in during the remainder of the financial year was £825,000. A small portion of Uiu £()0H,760 promised to local bodies apparently will not be required to be advanced, during the present financial year, but the great bulk of it will, and this leaves less than £200,000 available to meet the applications' coming to hand. As Mr. Allen put it, there has been a policy of plunge, and the big boroughs and richer local bodies have benefited, while the smaller ones have been placed at a disadvantage'. It is not necessary to discuss tho figures adduced by the Minister of, Finance in support of his contentions; they arc plain enough; nor can we see that very much good can come of the proposed inquiry. The law has not been broken, and the inquiry can do little more than substantiate the figures already given by Mr. Allen. An attempt will no doubt be made, as indeed it has already been made, to show that the larger and richer local bodies which have received large advances could not have borrowed the money so cheaply in the open market, and that therefore it was a good thing for the State to lend them the money. If there happened to be enough money to meet all demands there might be something in this contention, even though tlie State loses money on these, advances. But the point at issue is that the counties, which need the money to open up the country districts with roads and bridges, could not borrow to the extent they desired—there was not enough money to go round—and it would be absurd to argue that if they had to go on to the open market they would do better or even as well with their borrowing as the richer boroughs and large Harbour Boards. Therefore, if it is desirable to protect the boroughs from the necessity of facing the open market, how much more so is it necessary to save the counties from that loss. However, the whole question is now to go before the Public Accounts Committee, where these matters will no doubt be fully discussed.