NO MORE OBSTRUCTION

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 153, 20 February 1932, Page 4

NO MORE OBSTRUCTION

It is to be hoped that the reported intention of the Leader of the Labour Party to move a hostile amendment to the , Address-in-Reply debate, eariy in the approaching emergency j session, does not portend a repetition of the tactics which were j porsued by Labour dnring the debate on the Finance Bill last i year. When that highly debatable proposal was brought before ' the House by Mr. Forbes, Labour, as was its right, raised the most strenuous opposition to the salary and wage cut proposals which the Bill brought forward. During the earlier stages of the debate Labour advancecl several practical suggestions which received an entire lack of consideration from the Government, but this earlier attitude of constructive criticism was later s.ubmerged in altogether unjustifiable stone- walling tactics which cost the country thousands of pounds in waste time, and merely delayecl and impeded the business of the House. We have pointed out before that Parliamentary sitting time, quite apart from any other considerations, may be assessed roughly at £1 a minute as a charge upon the country. No party, Government or Opposi-. tion, can plead justification for prolonging the deliberations of the House without sufficient cause, and Labour will deserve no sympathy from the country if it embarks^ again on obstructionist tactics. Particularly at a time like the present a vigorous and alert Opposition is to be encouraged, but where it is obvious that all that can be said has been said and that the voting strength | of Hie parties has placed the fate of the measure beyond doubt, neither Labour nor any one else is serving the country by stonewalling. If it is necessary for Labour to record its protest against a measure with which it disagrees, that protest should not plaee an additional burden upon the taxpayers and impede the progress of important legislation. The cost of Govern- • ment and of legislation in this country is already inordinately i'ligh, and it should be the aim of any party which has, the interosts of the country at heart, to reduce rather than increase these eharges. Another point is also worthy of consideration. The necessity for legislation to deal with the pressing problems of the country "is even more vital at this present stage than it was in 1931, and while reserving to itself the right to criticise, the Opposition can have no justification for deliberately delaying the passage of necessary measures. The country as a whole is in no temper to tolerate wilful and unnecessary wastage of public time and money, and may be relied upon to exact its own retribution from any party which is responsible for bringing this ahout, Mr. Forbes has already outlined the progranime for the Emergency Session and his proposals are entitled to a fair consideration and to reasonable expedition, -where expedition is justified. At the same time, there is this to be said for the attitude of the Opposition. The Government, in its Coalition lorm, eommands a majority which carries with it the danger of arrogance. The Government as much as the Opposition must realise that it is in power to serve the people and not to impose its own individual fads and foibles upon them. A spirit of cooperation in the country's interests is what is required before anything else, and in this eritical stage in the affairs of the Dominion, it is perhaps not too much to hope thajt at least some of our politicians will realise that fact.