LIFE OF PARLIAMENT: THREE OR FOUR YEARS?

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 58, 1 December 1937, Page 3

LIFE OF PARLIAMENT: THREE OR FOUR YEARS?

-Press Aesociation.)

ELECTORAL BILL DEBATED Mr. Hamilton Advocates Longer Term MAORI VOTING SYSTEM

(By Teleeraph-

WELLINGTON, Last Night. Moving the committal of ,the Electoral Amendment Bill, ihe AttorneyGeneral (Hon. H. G. R. Mason) said the measure dealt with the alteration of the life of Parliament to three years, and, also variations in the system of Maori voting. The present Govornment, he said, had not agreed with the system under which the life of Parliament had been extended to four years. It believed that Parliament was the trustee for the people, and did not think that its life should be extended without direct reference to the people. Alteration of the life pf Parliament would apply to the present Parliament, as well as those of .the future, and it restored the right which the Government believed had been wrongly .taken from the people. With regard to the second part of the Bill, dealing with the conditions ef Maori voting, the Minister said Maoris in the future would be.supplied with ballot papers, as waa the ease with the pakeha, and the Maori would strike off jhe names not desired, as did the European. The Bill also made provision for the appointment of scrutineers in Maori elections. The measure would remedy a long-standing grievance by the Maoris, who at present voted by word ,of mouth. -The Maori not only resented this system, in which they said they were being Jreated as children and , inferiors, but they believed the system .was open to very grave abuses. - They held that !the absence of scrutineers prejudiced .them .very seriously, and that the secrecy of ballot could not well be maintained by the present methods. The present amendment did away with that. In future a Maori would be asked almost the same .questions at the poll as was a European on applying for his ballot paper or voting by declaration. The only real difference leff now between the voting of the Maoris and the pakeha was that in the ease of Maoris no provision had , yet been made for an .. elecforal roll. There were certain practical difficulties in the way of getting such a xoll at the present time. R-easonable Intervals for Voting The Leader of the Opposition (Hon. A. Hamilton) said it was a matter of opinion whether the term oi Parliament should be three or four years. Au annual election would be too cumbersome. Some countries, for instance, Britain had a ilve-year term, but they seldom went the full term. It was essential for the people 's voice .to be recordcd at reasonable intervals, so that .they could govern the country under the will of the people. An election was a fairly expensive matter and fairly disturbing to business and the economic life of any-community. ,The cost for a New Zealahd election . was £70,000 to £80,000. The Government Was evidently of the opinion that a three-year term was better. They (the Opposition). had no objection if the Government thought it could carry out its election promises in three years. Personally he thought it would be difficult for any Government to carry cut its programme in three years. Personally he had alwayi advocated a four-year term, However, when any Government was in office, it wa3 en- , titled to rule. We in New Zealand : stood by the people. Democracy in ; many parts of the "world, i^acluding the Continent, was breaking down, and it was having a severe test in America, The best example of democratic govern- [ ment was in Great Britain, where it seemed to stand four-squarc. Touching on the clauses relating to Maori interests, he said ho had not heard of the Maoris having a grievance, but if the Government had evidence of it, then well and good. The Opposition had no evidence. Limiting the Candidates Mr. Hamilton said he did nof. know whether it was wise to have a multiplicity of candidates at each election, md he suggested that, 'by increasing the existing deposit of £10, they might 'nduce the number of candidates. Poi instance, at the last election, there were 265 candidates. They had got to take cognisance of the fact that the splitting .up of votes and the multiplicity of candidates did not make for majority rule. He had thought of ppeferential voting as a cure for splitting the vote, but it ha.d been tried in some countries and there had been difficulties. He should not wonder that Sir Archdale Parkhill ha'd lost his seat in the Australian Pederal Elections through preferential. voting. Captain H. M. Rushworth said the question of the duration of Parliament was important, as . the Government could do as it willed and the people j were helpless. If democracy were to j remain, the people must have control over Parliament, which was only posj sibje by an election, but if the period i of Parliament were shortened, there 1 would be no continuity of policy^ Perj sonally, he favoured four years, but the j people should decide. j Sir Apirana Ngata said the Maori members had had an opportunity at the Native Affairs Committee of expressing their views, but beyond bringing forward two amendments, there was no opposition to the Bill. The amendments related to opposing the suggested method of following the pakeha system of the elimination ?f ean^idatssj *j| it i .

appearefl tms was likely to leia?Ro confusion; and also to obtain votes from Maori patients in hospitals. He doubted whether any provision malo in the Bill for secrecy would be secure, as there were many Maoris on the verge of illiteracy. Mr. A. C. A. Sexton expressod the opinion that it would be hard to find people feeling strongly about the duration of the life of Parliament, but he found that people felt annoyed over the last Government 's action in extending the term. Personally he would like four years. He advocated preferential voting. Leave it to the People Themselves Mr. E. L. Cullen stated the question of the life of Parliament should be left to the people themselves. He suggested that every Maori voter should have his name taken at the polling booths, so as to form the foundation for a permanent Maori roll. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle said that a four or five-year Parliament was better than a three-year Parliament. He asked the Prime Minister if he was still favourable to letting the people decide the matter of a referendum. How wa3 he going to decide what the people wanted? If the matter were put to the people, they would favour four years. Mr. J. A. Lee said he remembored when the life of Parliament had been extended to four years. It was in a clause in the Finance Bill, and the closure had been applied half-au-hour after it had been introduccd. ,Tlien there had been an explosion, which gained another three-quarters of an hour debate on the subject. The last Government ' had changcd the rules during the game. He was not going to say there was anything wrong witu a four-year Government, but there uefinitely was something wrong with the breach of democratic trusteeship, which laid down the rule of a .three-year Parliament. Mr. Lee ..lso opposed the suggestion for propOrtional representation. Wherever this mode of voting had been tried out, democracy had fallen overboard very rapidly. The people themselves should be given the right to determine the length of the life of Parliament. Mr. W. A, Bodkin suggested 1-^.t there were many reasons which made it expedient for the Government to press for an early election. Mr. H. T. Ratana congratulated the Minister on the Bill so far as it affected the Maori people, who would greatly appreciate the alterations being made. The debate was interrupted, by the adjournment at 5.30. The debate on the committal of the Electoral Amendment Bill was resumed to-night. Mr. H. T. Ratana said he could not understand why some of .the provisioni in the Bill relating to Maori elections had not been placed in the Statuts Book years ago. Mr. Polson's Sympathy Mr. W. J. Polson expressed sympathj with a number of members on thi Labour benches who, he held, weri being forced to cut short their politica' careers by 12 months. He did nol agree with the suggestion that theri jhould be a referendum on extending the life of Parliament. The Government of the day should decide on its own responsibility what should be th« life of Parliament. However, he waa aot concerned about a three-year Parliament, which he thought would tui! the Opposition 's purposo evea bettei than a four-year term. He agreed that a chango in the system of Maori elections was due, but the Government, while about it, mighi have seen .that some fairer system of representation for the Maoris than the present waa adopted. He instanced the fact that the member for Southern Madri had been returned on a franchise of soine 350 or 360 votes. It was surely unfair that a man' with such a small franchise should have equal rights in the Government of the country with a membei representing a large city constitiicncy. Mr. A. S. Richards said the present Bill' put into effect a pronrse made bythe Prime Minister on tns hustings during the last election. The Labour Party. always carried out its promises, he added. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. R. Semple) contended that .the cxtension to a four-year Parliament was a violation of tho constituteion which had been observed in this louutry for very many years. It was absurd for the Opposiliou to say that the Government was reverting to a three-year Parliament because it had political "cold shivers' '; it was restoring it because it was a right which had been taken away from the people without their consent and, in fact, m an uuconstitutional way. Mr. P. W. Schramm did not '.think any Government could caTry out its policy in three years, but he voted for the Bill because a promiso had been given to the people to return to a three'Oar term. jcersonaily he favoured u :erm of four years. "Would Suit the Government'' Hon. J. G. Goates congratulated Mr. Schramm on the mdependonce of his . opinion, statihg it was must refreshjng to hear a member of the Government rise in his place in the House and express such a view personally. Mr. Goates said he had for a long period j.avoured a four-year term. Lt would suit the Government to hivo an election now, said Mr. Go°.te«, because tho longer they went on, the biggor tho nurdle. The question of a iour-yuai ^ arlianient had been talked about for years, and if ali the members of the rLouse said what was right, they woum vote for a four-year term. Hon. F. Langstone suggested that the xirevious Government had extendeo rhe life of Parliament because it knew it was going in for a fui'ther wage .eduction and a policy of destructiom Jnder the Bill, the Maoris would have i secret ballot at tho elections, sometiiing they had never had before. and .he election would be conducted on the saifts linei a§ ' that ior ihe. takoha,

Furthermore, it would provide th9 basi3 for a written roll of Maoris. - Mr. J. O'Brien said it was not a four-year Parliament to which the Labour Government objected, but the method by Which it had been achieved. Mr. y. G. Smith said, as a matter of expediency, there was something to be said for tho present Bill. There were thousands of people throughout the Dominion who would 'welcoine it, besause it would enable them to vote fhe present Government out of office a year eooner than would otherwise be possible. Mr. J. Thorn said any extension of the life of Parliament without the consent of the people, was a violation of the principles undef which this country Rad been governed for some 60 years. The motion for committal was carried, and the House proceeded to eonsider the Bill in the committee stages. Clause 2 had not been passed when the committee reported progress. Mr. J. G. Barclay reported to the House that the managers appointed to confer with the mar agers of the Legislative Council regarding an amendment to the Whangarei Airport Bill had come to an agreement which met witL his approval. On his motion, the reporfc was adopted. The House rose at 10.3Q» > i