RIGHTS OF MEMBERS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 117, 16 April 1940, Page 6

RIGHTS OF MEMBERS

DOMINION PARLIAMENT. NECESSITY FOB SITTING. "From time to time I myself and the Opposition Caucus have drawn attention to the fact that Parliament in New Zealand has not met since late last year, that the intended February assembly was avoided, and that the date of its next sitting is still obscure. On the very important subject of Parliament’s function in a crisis like this I wish to engage, earnest public consideration. The subject cannot be dismissed easily and I am sure the long period without any Parliament sitting in New Zealand has had a disturbing influence particularly regrettable at this time.” This statement was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. A. Hamilton) to-day, in referring to New Zealand’s part in the war. “Particularly,” Mr Hamilton proceeded, “I wish to set before New Zealanders the outline of the functioning of Parliament in England, as well described and analysed by Lord Strabolgi in the February issue of a British magazine. Lord Strabolgi sat as a Labour member in the House of Commons for thirteen years, and is now the well-known Labour Peer. Not long ago he visited New Zealand. I wish to give extracts from Lord Strnbolgi’s article, and. for this purpose, I have necessarily condensed it, without, however, interfering in any way with its purport or train of fact. BRITAIN’S EXAMPLE. “Here is what Lord 'Strabolgi wrote under the heading ‘Parliament in the War’: ‘Even some of the best friends of our democratic Constitution believed that once the guns began to shoot the Mother of Parliaments would be put to sleep lor the duration or the war. . . What actually happened was that from the first days of the crisis. . . our Parliament took on a new lease of life and reasserted its power in unmistakable fashion. Despite far-reaching emergency powers, censorship and upheaval, the two Houses asserted themselves with a power and resolution which few Jiad foreseen or could have believed. What of Parliament since war was declared? Many feared, or even hoped, that Parliament would become a mere registering machine for Governmental decrees. . . (Parliament was to adjourn and flee to the Welsh mountains.) But the general resistance to a policy of scuttle carried the dav. This was the first victory of the Legislature over the Executive The next success was the determination to remain in session. As soon as the emergency powers, giving immense powers to the Government, were rushed through, the intention was to send ParVament awry on a long holidav. . . This was resisted. Finally, through the Whips, it was agreed that both Houses ■ of Parliament meet on three days a week instead of five. This wa s the second triumph for democracy. The pleasant proposal to always rise before black-out was defeated. Workmen encountered the black-out, why not M.P.’s?’ RIGHTS RETAINED. “ ‘What use was made of this insistence of Parliament i'n remaining alive?’, Lord Strabolgi wrote. (1) All normal peace-time legislation was dropped. (2) No Bills unconnected with the prosecution of the war were introduced. (3) Members waived their rights to introduce private Bills. (4) Parliament pressed successfully for the right to discuss public estimates from time to'time and to discuss grievances, before supply. (5) We have retained the right "to discuss, move amendments to, and vote on the War Budget. (6) Rights are reserved to raise matters involving legislation on motions for adjournment; to raise matters not involving legislation on motions of adjournment; to table motions, including motions of censure; to move the adjournment on matters of urgent public importance ; and (perhaps most important of all) to question Ministers on policy and administration. “Proceeding (adds Mr Hamilton), Lord Strabolgi said: ‘The Opposition parties, having declined an invitation to participate in the Government, promised general support for the prosecution of the war, while retaining the right to criticise. These criticisms have been constructive. The cross-examina-tion of Ministers at question time has always been most valuable, and it lias been particularly valuable, during the first few months of the war. There were inevitable frictions, delays and difficulties of mobilisation and of a change over from a peace time to a war economy. . . These defects were brought to the light of day (example of delay in pay to wives of soldiers, etc.). The exSecretary of War (Air Horc Belisha) lest his temper on one occasion when questioned about coatless soldiers on guard duty, saying it .would provide propaganda for the Germans. He was instantly suppressed by the House ol Commons, irrespective of party. If there is never to be criticism of Min isters. . . .then Parliament will be hamstrung. As to propaganda—the more it stresses the activity of Parliament the better. “ ‘There is a censorship in matters raised in the House. (1) The Speaker can refuse certain questions: (2) Ministers approach •members or AVhips with comment pointing out unsuspected danger; and (3) Ministers can always refuse to answer “in the public interest.” “ ‘Perhaps the greatest democratic triumph of Parliament so far has been concerned with the special powers of emergency legislation. . .The drastic regulations, before being debated, were submitted to a special committee representative of all parties with a view to agreement. The examination modified or struck out several of the more drastic rules. This was a clear example of the cheeking of bureaucracy, temporarily gone mad, by the Legislature. . . .Parliamentary pressure resulted in an improved separation allowance for dependants of soldiers; had soldiers’ conditions and ages reviewed; had the Ministry of Information reformed and remodelled. . .The influence of Parliament on the conduct of the war has been great. The one-day secret session (recently repealed) was a success. Valuable work has been done behind the scenes in committees which have full statutory powers. During the difficult days, the Leader of the Opposition was called into consultation by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary and informed of principal developments. In return for a promise of general support the Prime Minister immediately invited the aeting-Leader of tlie Opposition to consult with the principal Ministers directly concerned with the war on any matter that appeared urgent and important. Finally, members of the Opposition were by agreement, delegated as liaison officers between particular Ministries and the Opposition parties. These men act as channels of information also to the

Alinisters and departments. Tlie system works well. NEW LEASE OF LIFE. “ ‘ln addition, the Opposition . parties have their own committees diseuas-in-r war economy and its various branches. The House of Commons, in which 1 had the honour of sitting lor thirteen years, is the most democratic assembly "m the world. . . . It Has its delects and it was losing some cd its powers. Originally devised as a defence of the people against both nobles and. King—in other words, against tho bureaucracy of the day—it bad become too cumbersome under present-day conditions. A hotly originally formed to prevent the Executive from doing too much or acting too quickly had not been able to adjust itself to a r.ituation in which governmental action and intervention had become necessary in ever-increasing spheres of national activitv. The war lias given Parliament a new lease of life. It lias, in a way, reverted to its old status of a Grand Council of the Nation. “ ‘The war Hansard has been extraordinarily good reading. It is ci. r only completely unccnsorcd contemporary publication. It may well be that wei will have to put certain of our constitutional liberties in cold storage lor the purpose of winning the war. Parliament is performing the douole iurction of seeing that restrictions are not imposed except where necessary, nor applied harshly, nor against the dictates of common sense; and of seeing to it that His Majesty’s present advisers, who happened to he in office when we were forced into war, carry out the will of the nation, and prove themselves the most suitable for this, purpose.’ “Thus Lord Strabolgi tells the storv.” concluded ATr Hamilton. “T am sure New Zealand people will read it with interest. It is food for grave reflection here. Need I labour the point? It is obvious we must put our house iu order. 1 am sure the vast majority of the people are concerned—as the Opposition I lead is—at the corresponding attitude and function of Parliament here.”