The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1884. The Duration of Parliaments.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1290, 26 June 1884, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1884. The Duration of Parliaments.

Short as the session which is on the point of expiry has been, and absolutely barren of actual legislation, as the necessities of the case compelled it to be, dufing the first day or two after the members assembled more than one question was mentioned that was worthy of discussion. Of these not the least important was that dealing with the duration of Parliaments. Mr Shaw, the member for Inangahua, stated his intention to bring in a' Bill for the purpose ofiabolishing triennial Parliaments, and although nothing was said as to the extent of the proposed change, it was generally understood that five years was the period that would be advocated. Those who argue in favor of the establishment of quinquennial Parliaments do so not without some show of reason. They say that in three years a new member can do little more than learn the forms of procedure in the House, and that just as he is on the eve’-of entering into a sphere of usefulness he has to stand the ordeal of a general election, and if he is defeated the colony will lose services that might have proved valuable. Then, again, it is contended that by lengthening the duration of Parliaments the expenses incident to at a general election recur less frequently, and consequently it is to be commended on economical grounds. That there is some truth in these arguments we admit, but, at the same time, it is doubtful whether thejfcqtiite make out a case. In England, as everybody knows, the maximum time that a Parliament can remain in existence is seven , years, but it should be remembered that there is a vast difference between the politics of older countries and those of the colonies. The great majority of the questions dealt with by our House of Representatives are in Great Britain relegated {to the local government bodies, and are never brought before the Imperial Parliament at all. The New Zealand Legislature is, in fact, little more than a Board of Works writ large, and it has long been an axiom that such institutions should not have too extended a lease of life, in order to prevent abuses creeping' in. . On the whole, we think three years is ample, as the people are able to discover who are and who are not worthy of their confidence in that time, while a general election affords an opportunity for weeding out the useless tnembers and placing better men in their stead. The plea that the country should not be put to the expense of an election more often than is necessary can scarcely be cofisidere4 of much moment when applied to triennial parliaments, although it would have some force were the advisableness of choosing representatives annually under discussion. The Bill which was proposed by Mr Shaw would no doubt have elicited a good deal of talk, and it will probably be brought before the next Parliament. For many reasons a change from the present system appears to us to be undesirable, as in deciding upon three years as the period for the duration of one Parliament a happy mean has been hit upon. As this matter is one. that will almost certainly be heard of again in the House of Representatives it would be as well if it were made the subject of a question to the various candidates at the forthcoming general election.