POLITICAL HISTORY

Hokitika Guardian, 27 November 1928, Page 7

POLITICAL HISTORY

DEFEATED MINISTRY’S POSITION.

INTERESTING PRECEDENTS

(By TOUCHSTONE in the Auckland Star.)

What a defeated Administration ought to do after the people have given their verdict at the polls is one thing. And quite another tiling is what defeated Ministries have done on such occasions. New Zealand lias had only two instances of Government election defeats in the past thirty years, though it had quite a number before that, and it is worth while having a look at what happened in these cases. First of all it is as well to note what the constitutional authorities say ought to happen. The most recent writer on the subject is Dr. A. Berriedale Keith, the second edition of whose “Responsible Government in the Dominions” was published only this year. “Absolute dependence on custom marks the New Zealand Constitution” is one of the opening remarks Dr. Keith makes about us in reviewing the way things are done in the different Dominions. There is nothing at all in our Constitution about the necessity of Ministers commanding the support of Parliament, and although this is deemed just as absolutely necessary here as in any other Dominion it is so only by custom, and not by any requirement in the law. What is being freely debuted at present is whether the Coates Government should resign at once or call Parliament together and take a vote in the. House of Representatives. There is no fixed rule, says Dr. Keith on this point. The older practice in Britain was to wait and meet Parliament and go only when pushed out by an actual vote. However, Disraeli in 1808 disregarded this, as did Gladstone in 1874, and a new practice began, and it does not seem to have been followed invariably, as some defeated Governments seem to think any excuse for hanging on as long as possible is better than none. “Where defeat is clear,” says Dr. Keith, “there is no doubt much to be said for the early resignation of Ministers, after the necessary delay in clearing off routine matters, and the instalment in office of the new Government so that it may proceed to prepare measures fur submission to the Legislature. If this is not done it is necessary to adjourn the Legislature after passing a. vote of no-confidence in the Ministry and valuable Parliamentary time is wasted. But il there i.s a doubt it is clear that the decision must normally lie in favour ol waiting for the outcome. In the interim, of course, it i.s proper that nothing but routine business should be done, and that the meeting of Parliament should not be delayed, but, if possible, it should be called together at an early date to decide the issue.”

THE RISING OF LIBERALISM

Now, let us have a look at what happened in New Zealand in tbe past. At the elections of December 5, 1890, the Conservative Government under Sir Harry Atkinson was defeated. According to the Chrisclmrch “Press” of the period tbe elections resulted:—Ministerial, 29; Opposition, 15; OppositionLabour, 20; Independent, 5; doubtful, 4; and one Maori scat vacant. The Auckland “Star summed it up thus: Ministerial, 28; Opposition, .‘35; doubtful, 1.0. It will be seen from the foregoing that the Atkinson Ministry in its assured support was in better case than the Coates Ministry is to-day, for in 1890 the House of Representatives was only 74 strong, whereas to-day is has 80 members.

What happened in 1890 was that Parliament was summoned for January 23, 1891. A day or two before it was to meet, the Atkinson Government appointed six strong Conservatives to the Legislative Council. The Government had wanted to put in twelve, hut the Governor, Lord Oilslow, jibbed at this as completely over the edge, and gave as his reason foi allowing six that no new appointments had been made since 1887, and the Council membership had dropped from ■lB to 39. Having made the already Tory Council still more Tory, the next step taken was to induce the Speaker of the Council, Sir William Fitzherbert, to retire. Then on the day Parliament was to meet Sir Harry Atkinson, at 1 p.m., placed in the Governor's hands his resignation as Premier, together with those of his colleagues, and simultaneously had himself appointed Speaker of the Legislative Council. At 1.30 p.m. Mr. Ballanco was sent for hv the Governor, and at 2.30 p.m. when the House met he faced it as Premier.

the strength of parties being tested in the House the Ballance Government was supported by 38 members, while 28 followed the Leader of tbe Opposition. This was tbe first occasion on which a Liberal Government ever bad a majority in the Parliament or New Zealand. The elections were the first under the principal of one man one vote (elections have yet to be held in New Zealand on the basis of one vote one raluej.

"With the reinforcements 'bundled in by the defeated Government at the last moment practically every Liberal measure of consequence was killed dead in in Council after having been passed by big majorities in the House. Tn 1891 the Legislative Council rejected the Land Bill, the Land for Settlements Bill, the Shop Hours Bill, and the

Friendly Societies Bill. In most cases the voting to kill Liberal measures was id to o.

LIBERALISM IN THE COUNCIL

Unless onu House of Parliament was to go on passing bills while the other House threw them into the waste paper basket something had to be done. Mr Bailance asked the new Governor, Lord Glasgow, to make twelve appointments to the Council. No limit is fixed by law to the number of Legislative Councillors, but Lord Glasgow objected to twelve new ones going in in a liody. 'l’lie Minstrv insisted that the Governor’s duty was to act on their advice in the matter, but Lord Glasgow said they were swamping the Council and refused to budge. Appeal was made to the Colonial Office, and a cablegram came out from the Secretary of State telling his Excellency to cave in and do as asked, so in went the twelve. Even tin’s, however, did not stop the Council from doing its utmost to put a spoke in the wheel of progress whenever opportunity offered, and measure after measure was torn about until gradually a strong Liberal majority was built up by later appointments It will lie seen that Toryism made a graceless exit in 1891. Mr Coates says he intends to play the game in connection with his departure and there is no doubt that in oversea politics generally there is need for building up a tradition of clean and sportsmanliko wind-ups by defeated Ministries. A lot of discreditable tilings have been done all over the Empire on these occasions. In Queensland years ago a defeated Prime Minister even had the effrontery to make his last official act the appointment of himself to the Chief Justiceship of the colony. More recently in Ontario there was great indignation when a beaten Ministry pitchforked a large number of its friends into billets on bidding adieu to office. Altogether the writers on those subjects are able to record far too many of such instances.

G OVER NOR S INTERVENE

In some cases Governors have intervened to prevent defeated Governments abusing their powers. It is an important thing to be remembered that whereas the King in Britain always acts on the advice of his Ministers, the Governors in the Dominions still have real discretion. In his book Dr Keith says of our position: “The (Governors’s) instructions in the ease of New Zealand, issued when it was given the style of Dominion in 1907, still retained the power to disregard advice, and this is retained in the instructions to the Governor-General of May 11th. 1917.” Tn 1877 the Marquis of Norma nby, when Governor, refused to make an appointment to the Legislative Council until a motion of censure pending ill Parliament had lieen disposed of. In New South Wales in 1865, Sir John Young declined the request of a defeated Ministry to add members to the Legislative Council. In 1879 Sir Hercules Robinson insisted on Sir George Grey doing nothing but routine business, pending a dissolution. In New Brunswick in 1908 tbe Governor refused to make appointments desired by a defeated Government. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Sir Ronald Munro-Ferguson, as GovernorGemeral df the Commonwealth, in 1913, followed the British plan of accepting the advice of hid Ministers without exercising his own discretion, just as the King does, and Dr Keitli notes in his book a growing trend in this direction, though so far there is no universal following of it.

LIBERALISM’S DECLINE.

It remains to record what happened after the elections of 1011 that led to the Reform party reaching office. It. was not until December 20th. after the second ballots had been cleaned up. that the final position of the parties was discernible. The newspapers’ classification gave the following position: Literal 36, Reform 37, Independent 2, Independent Maori 1, Labour 4. Parliament was summoned for February loth. 1912, and the vote on a no-con-f'denee motion was 39 all, the Speaker giving his casting vote for the Government in accordance with established practice. “I am not going to cling to office upon a narrow majority for anybody in this country.” declared Sir Joseph Ward at the time of this division, adding that he considered the natural allies in New Zealand politics were the Liberal and Labour parties, and that “the greatest and most fulfil mistake either section could make would be an allianco with their unnatural opponents,” the Tories. Immediately following the Parliamentary vote Sir Joseph Ward resigned, and a reconstructed Ministry under Sir Thomas Mackenzie was formed. This carried on without meeting Parliament until its assembling at the usual date at the end of June. On July 9th. the Government was defeated by eight votes on a no-confidence motion, and the Reform Government and Mr Massey came into being.

When the Liberals went out in 1912 there was no last minute attempt to shoyo 'a dozen Liberals in the Legislative Council to block Reform bills. Three Liberals were nominated to the Council in June, 1912, by the Mackenzie Government, and it is worth noting that although the Council was predominantly Liberal no set massacre of Government measures followed, as was the case in 1891.