PETTINESS OF PARLIAMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 November 1921, Page 4

PETTINESS OF PAR LIAMENT.

WANTED A HIGHER STANDARD

It is said that “tlio onlooker often sees most-of tlio n Thai must l>o our justification lor writing on this subject of the present Parliamentary standards of debate. Those win) remember tlie days of Atkinson, Grey, Kalla nee, Kollcston, Reeves, Seddon and the MacKeiiaick (both J’olm and Scobio) tire bound to feel a sense nl irritation over the pettiness of Parliamentary debates such as we have disked up to us to-day. Generally we dislike references to ‘‘the good old days” but in thinking of Parliament we are called on to remember some of the kingly figures in debate who graced the Mouse , in past days. It is in vain that we ; search for the large, important or brilliant s|>eeeh on any question to-day. The standard now is mediocre. It can be described as a diet of cabbages, raw. hoik'd and pickled—served up with the sauce of never ending party appeal. In a time such as this with the deep and important problems of finance, production, industrial relations and public administration, the people are looking loi leadership Horn the men who have been chosen as their representatives. Instead of study, insight and much called for guidance of the Dominion's affairs what have wef There is first of, all the attitude of those ill power that "tlio King can do no wrong” applies to themselves. To a certain extent this is excusable for no Government min nllnrd 1.0 admit that it i s wrong. When carried to the length ot eonstnnt touchiness over every point in legitimate criticism it impresses the bystander rather as weakness tlmu strength. The function ami rigln ol criticism should be kept as free as possible ill Pai liamem. ' Til this Parliament there appears to us far too much indulgence in petty interjections on what arc mostly minor issues.

These debates read as if membcis

... or,, jn chronic state of ill-nature and feared to lot anyone speak hot. themselves. Where the cabbage standard of the debates is displayed is in the melancholy sameness in quality »* speech after speech that is delivered. It has recently been suggested - that some money might l>e saved by cutting down Hansard. We question if any harm would result if all the speeches cere |Mit in a !h>x, and any one drawn out t.o be printed just as exhibiting u|ui|. is produced in tlm talking shop. A very large proportion of tlm speeches delivered arc simply hustings speech's If they were reserved for the hustings nobody could object: the people expect '• m-cer. that wlom representatives arc 1m the House that they will concent rat '• n the needs of the Dominion and mil rely have their w Imb* attention mi (he issue ol whether they will he retained again. Thine appears to us a

.id lack u! cone, -nl rat ion on their subi- I in tlq. speeches now delivered. I lie talk flows in a way which conveys the i■ 'iprcssion that till* speakers mind is .my milch concerned with his audience, and his own personality and only in a minor degree on the subject lie is talking about. Our thoughts arc forced to Speeches and debates in the House which wi*r# of real interest.

We can remember T. I\. Taylor of other able speakers taking a single question which they bad studied carefelly and mastered from various angles and devoting half an hour to the topic in such a way as to claim the attention not merely of tile House but the ■ omitry at large. Who quotes a momlaw's speech now except it be for purely pattisan purposes!-' Taking the recent Budget debate is tlier,. a really striking, not to sav comprehensive speech in all of those delivered Yet this is Hie time of big problems when the country is looking for the kingly figure of a master speaker who would do justice to some of the vital issues wo arc faced with as a people. Perhaps it is useless looking for any brilliance or striking qualities, still our parliamentarians might do bettor with advantage to themselves and tli,. country. The time taken up in the pettiness of downy porsiflfilage when the call, if ever, is for serious business is certainly depressing. There may bo man v who think they are wits, but from our reading these members could do better by letting the job out. Generally the attitude of members conveys the idea that Parliament at present is being govcjrned by a standard that apes at universality and succeeds only in being small, disjointed, rambling and in sonic degree petty. The defects that might be remedied strike us as these:

(1) I,aek of concentration on one subject nt :i time (wo have an example liofnro ns of <i member—ono of tlio most practical men generally trying in deal with fivo subjects in a quarter oolnmn).

(•J) Absence of specialisation on tin' subject.' 11l at. tlio incmbor misfit, final most, affectively with. HI) Tntolorancc of differemc in opinion.

(There is a stupendous waste of time in useless attacks about '‘minority representation.” party differences, personal positions, which do not alter any opinions).

Tf we seem to he caustic on our criticism of our present Parliament it is not because of any ill-will towards members. Tt is sololv because (he needs of the Dominion call for improved system, higher standards, more comprehensive handling inside of Parliament ns well as outside. The [greater duties demand hioher standards than ennld he mhhed alone with when times were good and easy.

(Pontrilmtep by the N.Z. Welfare Penonel.