THE SESSION.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 314, 14 November 1929, Page 4

THE SESSION.

THE Parliamentary session now concluded attracts more than usual interest if only by the fact that it is the first opportunity the country has had of judging the merits of the three party balance system. It can hardly be said to be successful. Rather does it provide a strong reason why the country should get back to the two party system. Throughout there has been far too much thought of party, and it has been plainly apparent in many party decisions that the object was a move on the political chess board. The country needs the test to be “ Whn,t will this achieve the balancing of three parties .has made it “ What will we achieve.”

The session has been barren of results. But this if evidenced by a thin Statute Book is in itself not a proof of failure. A few statutes wisely devised and well considered are better than a multitude of hastily passed Acts. But the failure is shown by the voluminous Hansard. It has been a session of talk——and too often idle

talk. The stock debates on the Ad-dress-in-Reply and the Budget occupied an excessive time and to little purpose. For this the Government cannot altogether be blamed. The loquacity of members was not confined to the United Party. But to a degree the responsibility was theirs. They were not ready for business. Ministers toured the country, listened to innumerable deputations and made endless promises. As new Ministers it was desirable that members of the Cabinet should make themselves acquainted with many departmental problems by personal acquaintance with the facts, but this can be overdone. If there had been less travelling ana more concentration on the recommendation of Government advisers, more legislation would have been ready. The Minister of Education talked a tremendous amount about “ the agricultural bias of education,” he must have visited hundreds of schools, he led the country to expect an Education Bill, and the sum total of everything is that a Bill is to be framed after a recess inquiry.

Probably the most needed measure was the Transport Amendment Bill. Its appearance was delayed and because of the waste of time by the House, the Bill has the contentious clauses eliminated and will go on the Statute Book as a very harmless, and it seems very useless, piece of legislation.

It is quite the customary thing to say that the personnel of the House is fully up to the standard of previous Parliaments. It may be so. But he level of debate has certainly not been very edifying. The interjections were sometimes vulgar, rarely relieved by wit, and mostly inane and stupid. It does not show the House in a very favourable light. Probably all parties will consider they have made ground with the electors. They may mistake general silent disgust for condemnation of their opponents. The Government has undoubtedly lost ground. It placed itself in the very dangerous political dilemma of promising too much. When it came into office it found, as many a party has done, that it is one thing to outline a “ vigorous policy ” and a very different thing to give effect to it. With an empty Treasury through no fault of its own it was financially fettered. It suffered further, through the ill-health of its veteran leader, for after all just as the United Party’s election victory was largely a one man win, so has the Government been a one man Government. Sir Joseph faced the financial difficulties he found the country in with courage and resource, and his Budget was a clever, strong and thoughtful handling of a difficult situation. Had he remained in good health more might have been accomplished. It was the hardest blow the party received. But if the Government has fallen in popularity the other parties have made no headway. Probably the leaders realise this, which accounts for the reluctance to defeat the Government and force an election.