Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1920. THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE

The debate on the ' Opposition want-of-confidence amendment cumo tamely to an end in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon and the results of the division which followed were free from any element of surprise. Four or five Independents abstained from voting, and of the 70 members who voted or paired 46, as nearly as possible two-thirds, voted for the Government. It of,course adds to tho significance of these figures that while the .Government,- is solidly supported by a united party, tho minority which voted against it waa a combination for tho occasion of distinct and irreconcilable groups. The Liberals and the Labour Party, in particular, arc avowedly at daggers drawn. The division simply emphasises facts which from " the outset were never in doubt. Its essential result is merely to_ demonstrate what was already quite apparent: that the Reform Party is the only effective working combination in the House. The Leader and ' members of the Opposition failed j absolutely to justify their attack upon the Government—the attack in fact was a poor pretence, and the speeches in which it was developed might have been delivered quite as appropriately in the course of the ordinary debate on the Address-in- . 'Reply. After disposing of the timewasting Opposition effort, tho House turned to somewhat more interesting fare in the shape, of an amendment submitted by Mr. 0. E. Statham which affirms that the Ministry should bo elected, if not by tho. House, at least by the- members of the dominant party. No one who heard Mft. Statham's speech yesterday could doubt his earnest sincerity and honesty of purpose. At the same time it is perfectly clear that his amendment, which the Government of necessity has accepted as a motion of want of confidence, can serve no useful or practical'purpose. In explaining his reasons for breaking away from the Reform Party. Mil. Statham criticised the Government very freely, but on the wholo his criticism amounted _ to vaguo and ineffective generalities. The interest of his speech centred in tho contention that the election of Ministers would enable the Government and Parliament to .do better and more effective work.

It is fairly obvious that in raising this contention Mr. Statham is attempting to provide a cut and dried remedy for defects in the political machinery which aro much more likely to be corrected by »•. more or less gradual process of change and development. The member for Duncdin Central, sought §to justify his advocacy of an elective Ministry by urging that at present private members of Parliament exercise no really effective voice in shaping and dealing with \ legislation and are little better than puppets in the hands of the Government of the day. Evidently if the existing state of affairs were as bad as ho maintains it would not be amended by the merely mechanical chango implied in the straight-out election of Ministers by the party in power. Mn. Statham contradicted his own main argument, however, by asserting at one point in his speech that Ministers were eagerly intent on ascertaining the views of new members in order 'that they might shape their policy accordingly. The real position of course is that as matters stand, the Government exists by the will of the party which supports it, and this on the face of it meaiHi that the members of_ this party aro already in a position to influence effectively the composition of the' Government,, its policy and working _ methods. _If a Government fails in any vital particular to satisfy its party caucus there is an obvious and adequate remedy in refusing it further support. The rank and file of a dominant party is in a real sense responsible aliko for the composition of the Government and for its methods in giving effect to the policy to which the party is pledged. It is certainly right that Ministerial office should be conferred only upon those who command the approval and support of the party rank and file, but there are practical objections of great wciglit to the election of Ministers irrespective of the wishes of the party leader. This procedure would be very likely to result in the formation of a Cabinet whose members would find it difficult to establish working harmony. A Cabinet capable of effective team-work is much moro likely to bo obtained if the members of the party rank, and file, while asserting their right, to indicate their preference where Ministerial appointments are concerned, leave it freely open to their leader, if he thinks it necessary, to advance such considerations as may induce them to vary their proposals. From the standpoint of working efficiency a flexible arrangement on these lines is in every way preferable to a system under which the appointment of Ministers would bo determined by a direct vote of_ the party caucus. There is nothing to prevent the party in power scouring all the benefits that could possibly accrue from the election of Ministers without the accompanying disadvantages

the adoption of this procedure would undoubtedly entail. Sincerely as he is bent on promoting and hastening reform, the proposal of _ the member for Duncdin Central is in itself unsound, and it. is to bo remitted that in submitting it, he felt it necessary to deal with party affairs of the recent past which have

no practical bearing on tho issue now before the House and tho ventilation of which can serve no othor purposo than to provide materia] for the class of political humbug indulged in last evening by the Leader of the Opposition.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19200709.2.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 244, 9 July 1920, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
929

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1920. THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 244, 9 July 1920, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1920. THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 244, 9 July 1920, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert