The Waikato Times THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1936. THE ROLE OF CRITIC

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19897, 28 May 1936, Page 8

The Waikato Times THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1936. THE ROLE OF CRITIC

There was no cause for surprise when the Labour member for Tauranga strongly advocated in the House the provision of some court of appeal for transport licensing cases. If anything there was cause for pleasure because matters such as this, involving a most important principle, should be debated in Parliament. It would not be in the public interest if the discussions were taken in caucus, for those proceedings are not open to the people. The tendency of the Government to summon party meetings, at which the proposals of the Government are outlined and presumably dis~ cussed, and then rush these measures through Parliament under the plea of urgency, is contrary to the interests of the Dominion. It may be, as is usually reported, that the party has unanimously approved of the Ministry’s proposals, but there has been disturbing evidence that at these party meetings any explanations have not informed members of the details of the various Bills.

This was shown when the Factories Amendment Bill was before the House. The member for Wallace, the Hon. A. Hamilton, said that the Bill would mean treble pay for work on Sundays and Government members intel‘jected: “The Bill does not say that.” Mr Hamilton at once replied that if the Minister if Labour would endorse that he would be satisfied, and Mr Armstrong stated: “ You are quite right. They will get treble time.” Here is evidence that the Government members did not know the effects of the measure that they were supporting. The Labour members may be unanimous regarding the general trend of the legislation, but in such a large party unanimity regarding particulars would be impossible. These dilferences, it is said, are thrashed out at the caucus meetings, but the place for that proceeding is in Parliament, in order that the electors may know the views of their representatives.

The idea of holding frequent party meetings and there discussing legislation is dangerous to the democratic form of govern—ment if it tends to restrict free debate in the House. The country has been afforded quite sufficient evidence of party discipline, with the private member sitting dumb during the passage of legislation of vital importance to the country. There is no desire for a third chamber, sitting in private, where differences of opinion are smoothed out. It is because the speech of the member for Tam-anga has helped to re-assert the right of any member to criticise that it is welcome. ‘Mr Burnett supported the Bill generally, but he took exception to one section that would deprive interested people of a court of appeal, and by stating his views in open session he has done the country a good service. If, as was stated, the Opposition members were amazed, then that shows to what extent this right to criticise has been restricted by the caucus system. Parliament is elected to debate the legislative measures placed before it. The House, and not the caucus room, is the place where the issues should be settled, and the ditl'ering views expressed. If the action of the member for Tauranga has created a surprise then it is to be hoped that, as a result of the lead he has given, others will exercise their privileges and restore the debates in the House to the place they should occupy.