Abolition of Party Government

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 99, 24 October 1893, Page 2

Abolition of Party Government

SIR ROBERT STOUTS'S PROPOSALS In the course of his speech at Weilin gton on Friday, Sir Robert Btont said : — At the present time the Ministry of the day was elected in this way : They had a House of Representatives of 74 members, who elected a Speaker. That left 73 members, and according to their system the bare majority of the House eleoted a leader, and that leader may elect the Ministry. By their system of Party Government that Ministry was practically pat in, not merely as administrators, but simply to rule their legislation. That, he submitted was wrong. He proposed, in order that the Legislature should decide on each measure on its merits, that they should have another way of appointing their Executive. The proposal he had to make was not revolutionary. the Par* liament eleoted the Executive, allow* ing every member to have a vote— it could be by ballot— they would have a Ministry that would have some tenure of office. Ministers would only then be removed through misconduct. Then they would have their measures discussed on their merits, and there would be no need to ask the question, How will this Bill affect the Ministry of the day? If this system was adopted, their committees would have more power, so that they would get men trained both to legislative and administrative work. He would give them an example. Take, for instance, the question of Native affairs. There would be a Native Affairs Committee, and all questions respecting the Natives would be dealt with by this committee, as it is now. The result would be that they would have a gentleman who would perhaps become chairman of the committee, and so the training he would get would fit him to succeed the Native Minister. These committees would form training schools for the developement of our administrators. This system would apply to the public accounts, and the various other committees appointed. They would have a committee dealing with the Estimates, and revising them. Economy would be promoted, because each vote would have to be explained by the Minister to the committee, and the committee would report to the Hoase. They would not have Ministers continually worried with legislative work, or as to whether this measure or that affected them, but they would simply carry out the laws as they existed. They would have each Minister devoting the whole of bis attention to his department, and bringing (forward such measures as he considered necessary for the working of his department. The independence of their legislature would be secured. The administration would also have some continuity. The standing orders would bare to be retrained in order to get rid of that absurd system by which measures were often carried by physical endurance. They were supposed to sit up and do their business after 12 o'clock. All this would have to be changed. He did not think they saw the far-reaching effect of making their administration strong and independent and at the same time conserving the rights and preriliges of the Legislature. While the standing orders must be modified so that the House might properly discuss tbe measures brought before it, and not have to depend upon carrying them by physioal en» durance, they must also consider the rights of minorities, for tney had no ■right to allow a majority to ride rough* shod over any minority, Let them ex« press their views, but it must be remem* bored that they lived in a country where tke majority must rule. Suppose if they passed measures and tbe Legislative Council threw them out?