THE FAILURE OF PARLIAMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 21 March 1922, Page 8

THE FAILURE OF PARLIAMENT

LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. WANTED A NATIONAL OUTLOOK. | In this time of trial for both capital and labor the people are looking to Parliament. It will depend upon our Parliamentarians whether they look in vain or not. There are some things, of course, that Parliament cannot do. The weather, for instance, causes us at times a good deal of trouble, but we have not yet heard of politicians who want to nationalise the weather; the Socialist Party in our House proposes to “nationalise the banks and all the principal industries. Those words “all the principal industries” are few, but between the nationalising of these and. Soviet Russia there is not a great deal of difference. A certain school contends that Parliament is a failure and should give way to something which they term an industrial council. We have known industrial councils, conferences and congresses and while these may do good work they are never an adequate substitute for Parliament. We cannot agree that Parliament is an absolute failure, but in certain directions, it appears to us ( to be failing. Never in the history of our Dominion was there greater need for earnest thought and. patient constructive work on the part of Parliament than obtains now. It is in this respect that we find a measure of failure. Sir John Findlay K.C. has stated recently that what is needed is “not more, but less party.” The House and the country could, at least, do with fewer parties. The existence of so many makes far too much quite useless talk in explanations, and mutual recrimination. What strikes us is that ! members seem to be content to remain the slaves of party customs, habits and routine that might well be laid aside at the call of special national requirements.

When faced with the war the chief parties formed a coalition. It may have been a- National Government or not according to what is meant by the words. It was at least an honest attempt in the hour of danger to place the nation and the Empire before patty. Surely we ought to realise that though the war is over there still exists elements of very great danger, in the aftermath of the business, industrial and social troubles which we are now faced with. In our - opinion whether there is one party or six does not get over the problem of ensuring that the nation shall have precedence of party all the time. There is still the same flood of small talk designed to advance the party or person, whilst the time calls for early attention being given to the safeguarding and advancement of the nation. Without doubt, criticism is good. No one can object to full criticism by any party or individual, but we protest that much of the talk in Parliament is not criticism proper, but merely talk to prove what is wrong. Examination to the full of all matters affecting the country’s interests is desirable. True examination and sound criticism cannot be found, however, in arguments of a merely negative character. We read how this and the other member labors to prove that the Government —another party—or other individual is wrong, but never once attempts to show what is right. What is urgently wanted is a general practice of constructive criticism. The people do not want to know merely who and what is wrong. To help forward the Dominion we need to know what is right. Criticism of a positive constructive kind will help the Government that has sense enough to learn from it, and if it does not learn it should give place to another. The whole Empire and the Dominion is calling for men who will, in respect to their country’s affairs, take a national outlook.

In the discussion which took place last session on the important question of retrenchment we consider that full justice was not given either to the country, or the members of the Civil Service, in the line which most of the speakers followed. With one or two exceptions there was an entire absence of real critical examination of the Dominion’s financial position, and no serious attempt to adjust the burdens which have to be borne on some settled principles of equity. For the greatter part the debate followed the well worn pathway of recrimination, whilst from Mr. Holland’s party there emanated only the loud cry for party votes for which they were prepared to let the finances of the country sink. There is certainly need for higher standards in Parliament; for more constructive mentality and a broader outlook towards national ends. (Contributed by the New Zealand JVelf are League.)