“CABBAGES AND KINGS.”

Taranaki Daily News, 10 December 1921, Page 12

“CABBAGES AND KINGS.”

THE PETTINESS OF PARLIAMENT, WANTED—A HIGHER STANDARD. It is said that “the onlooker often sees moat of the game.” That must be our justification for writing on this subject of the present Parliamentary standards of debitte. Those who remember the days of Atkinson, Grey, Ballance, Rolleston, Reeves, Seddon and tliQ Mackenzies (both John and Scobie) are bound to feel a sense of irritation o\er the pettiness of Parliamentary debates such as we have dished 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 grace<Kthe House in past days. It is in vain that we search for the large, important or brilliant speech on any question to-day. The standard now is mediocre. It can be described as a diet of cabbages, raw, boiled 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 relation, and public administration, the people are looking for leadership from 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 we? There is first of all the attitude of those in power that “the King can do no wrong.” applied' to themselves. To a ‘certain exthis is excusable, for no Government can afford to admit that it is in the wrong. When carried to the length of constant touchiness over every point of legitimate criticism it impresses the bystander rather as weakness than strength. The functon and right of criticism should be kept as free as .possible in Parliament. In this Parliament there appears to us far too much indulgence in petty interjections on what are mostly minor issues. These debates read as if members were in a chronic state of ill-nature, and feared to let anyone speak hut themselves. Whereat he cabbage standard of the debates is displaced is in the meJanicholy sameness in quality of speech after speech that is delivered. It has recently been suggested that some money might be saved by cutting down . Hansard. We question if any harm would result if all the speeches were p-ut in a box and any one drawn out to be printed just as exhibiting what is produced in the talking shop. A very large proportion of the speeches delivered are simply hustings speeches. If they were reserved for .the hustings nobody could object. The people expect, however, that when representatives are in the

House that they will concentrate on the needs of the Dominion and not merely have their whole attention on the issue of whether they will be returned again. There appears to us a sad lack of concentration on their subject in the speeches now delivered. Tiro talk flows in a way which conveys the impression that mind is very much concerned with his audience, and his own personality, and only in a minor degree on the subject he is talking about. Our thoughts are forced to speeches and debates in the House which were of regj interest. We can remember the late Mr. T. E. Taylor—or other able speaker—taking a single question, which they had studied carefully and mastered from various angles, and devoting half an hour to the topic hi such a way as to claim the attention not merely of the House but of the country at large. Who qdotes a member’s speech now except it be for purely partisan purposes? Taking the recent Budget debate, is there a really striking, not to say comprehensive, speech in all of those delivered? Yet this is the time of big problems, when the country is lookin/ for the kingly figure of a masted speaker who would do justice to some of the v ital issued we are faced with as a people. Perhaps it is useless looking for any brilliance or striking qualities, still our Parliamentarians might do better with advantage to themselves and the country, The time taken up in the pettiness of downy persifllage when the call, if ever, is for serious business is certainly depressing. There xnay be many 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 governed hy a standard that apes at universality and succeeds only in being s-mall. disjointed, rambling, and in some degree petty. The defects that might be strike us as these: (1) Lack of concentration on one subject at a time. (We have an example before us\of a member, one of the most practical men generally, trying to deal with five subjects in a quarter column).

(2) Absence of specialisation on the subject that the member might deal most effectively with. (3) Intolerance of difference in opinion. (There is a stupendous waste of time in useless attacks about “minority represenfat ion,” party differences, personal positions, etc. ,which do not alter any opinions.) If we seem to be caustic in our criticism of our present Parliament it is not because of any ill-will toward members. It is solely because the needs of the Dominion call for improved system higher standards, more comprehensive handling inside of Parliaent as well as outside. The greater duties demand higher standards than could be rubbed along with when times were good and easy, (Contributed by N.Z. Welfare League.)