The Waikato Times With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1930. PARLIAMENTARY METHODS

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17976, 22 March 1930, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1930. PARLIAMENTARY METHODS

The La'bour Party in Britain are said to have an anxious time before them, and the reasons for this anxiety are worth a little attention. The Goal Bill is the danger point. To placate the miners a Bill was introduced to shorten the working hours, and as this would make it necessary to reduce wages a clause wa° inserted entitling the coal-owners to fix a minimum price for coal. The Conservatives and ■the Liberals both object to this, and if they attend and vote they are numerous enough to defeat the Government. The supporters of the Government declare that this means the withdrawal of the Bill, a course which would be greatly resented by the miners. The withdrawal of the Bill may he due to the offended dignity of the Labour Government or may take place because they fear that decreased wages would

more than outweigh the advantage of shorter hours. It does not seem to be sufficiently realised that the threeparty system has changed the conventions of Parliament. Under the twoparty system any self-respecting Government which had sustained a defeat on a measure of any importance immediately resigned, and there seems, to be some expectation that the same method would be followed under such conditions as exist at present. It is certain, however, that this idea will soon disappear. If it were acted on it would be impossible for any stable Government to be formed. Under a three-party system it is probable that no party wilt often have a clear majority. If parties are at all equally divided two will always be able to defeat the third, and if the third is then expected to resign, we shall have either a general election or a series of ephemeral Governments. There is no guarantee that a general election wouid yield a different house, while it would certainly waste money and disturb the country. We shall certainly come speedily to the conclusion that a party w<hich has achieved the position of holding the Government at the beginning of a Parliament must usually continue to do so until the next general election is held. There will always be exceptions, and where administration is faulty or corrupt opponents may combine to turn out a Government. There may also be intrigues between parties who hold conflicting views to obtain office with its pay if not its power. Such action, however, is likely to bring its authors into bad repuLe in the country and may well result in their disappearance from politics. There may be drawbacks to this three-party system which will develop later, but there are certain advantages which will result from it. Legislation will have to be more carefully considered and prepared if it is to be accepted by a House which knows that its rejection will not produce a political convulsion. We have discussed this question from the British aspect, but it has the same force and effect for us. We have too much legislation. It is a common experience that an Act passed one session lias to be amended the next. It did not receive sufficient consideration from either the draftsman, the Government or the House. Where there are two parties, with the convention that the Government must carry all its measures, Government supporters vole for the measure for the sake of the party, and the Opposition lire of criticism which is always outvoted. Under the three-party system bills will have a much better chance of being considered on their merits. The original theory of Parliament was that it was a place for the consideration and discussion of different policies. The necessity of providing a stable Government and a consistent policy led to the formation of parties, and it was soon perceived that no man acting on his own could hope to achieve much, and that to be effective lie must act with others. Party is like many other things, valuable if not pushed too far. In Britain the increasing complexity and volume of business led to an increased necessity for party, and at the same time led to its degradation. Time was always inadequate for the transaction of business which must be put through and Government supporters were, therefore always expected to be ready to vote and at the '■ame time to hold their tongues. It is not a very dignified role, and it is not strange that back bench supporters had a change of Government as an opportunity ot taking a part in business. Those who have ever read our own Hansard will find that the speeches are more weighty and valuable than is commonly thought. The chief faults are repetition and an inability to stop. Every member must say he is sorry that Sir Charles Fergusson is leaving the country, or that Sir Joseph Ward is indisposed. It is unnecessary to labour the obvious, and it is equally unnecessary to repeat arguments brought forward by a previous speaker. An even worse fault is the abuse or the raillery of a man with whom the speaker docs nol agree. If these useless items of padding were omitLcd discussion could be carried out adequately in half the time. There

is no reason why men should consider themselves called on to make a speech when they have nothing definite to say, and should also fancy that they must take all the time allotted to them. The Universities should include amongst their subjects the art of winding up a speech; what they call a faculty which is certainly wanting with most speakers.