“THE IDEAL PARLIAMENT.”

Hokitika Guardian, 3 October 1931, Page 3

“THE IDEAL PARLIAMENT.”

(To the Editor). Sir, —There are to-day two coai-flic-t----j ing schools of political reform. One 1 wants to reduce our parliament to 20 ! members, make its meetings more or I less secret like those of our various boards of control, and make it less under the control of the people. The J other school wants a large parliament as now, full publicity of its deliberations, and if possible greater control oyer parliament by tire people. 1 Delong to the latter. My reasons are as follows Each candidate now is more or less known to his constituents who can therefore vote with intelligence. In a parliament of only 20 the candidates would he more remote from their constituents. In fact, some advocates even cite this as an advantage. We would thus have to depend on our newspapers to tell us which were me best men. This would enable combinations to secretly adopt their 20 nominess and surreptitiously boost them for twelve months before the election, thus improperly controlling New Zealand and introducing Boss rule. It is distance, not population, that separates a candidate front his constituents. Great Britain, with New Zealand’s area, has 600 members. We have only 80. Any»reduction would damage democracy.

We must remember that, though some of the tedious talk in Parliament seems useless, it renders a vital service by ensuring full analysis of proposals and safe guardian against graft. The proposed 20 would be no more worthy than the 20 men most prominent in the last two parliaments. To some ex. tent a parliament of 20 could resolve itself into a perpetual National Government, and that would make the people’s control a mockery. Such a parliament, once constitutionally set up, could never be dislodged against its will without a. revolution. It could prolong its life continuously by an act of parliament. It could fix its salary and double it as often as it liked. Most people agree that greater control of parliament by the people, if possible, is desirable. Even those wlio execrate our present mode of election and blithely advocate a Dictator admit themselves stumped by the retort: “Who shall elect the Dictator?” I think there is not much wrong with our way of electing parliament. What is chiefly lacking is some way of dislodging it. It is an atrocious gamble to send 80 (or 20)"men to Wellington to play ducks and drakes with out country fpr three years unrestrained. The _ length of a parliament’s life measures the length of each member’s job; and today it is becoming frankly regarded as every man’s first duty to keep bis job. A Government knows that, in spite of hostile speeches, the Opposition would dread a dissolution. .AYbat is needed is that the people—not the Opposition—shall have the power to dissolve parliament. It would he worth millions annually to our citizens to have that power. It would save us from tire pitiable plight of being powerless while a wretched Government ruined our country’s prosperity during three despairing years.

T know onily one wav by Which this power can he had. It is easy, inexpensive. absolutely effective and ready for immediate application if some hold M.P. will have the necessary legislation passed. I propose a statutory referendum to be held every twelve months on the question, “Dissolution or Renewal?” 1 call this annual event the “Refercimium.” I think if it' were once in vogue no parliament would attempt to abolish ... it without a direct vote of the people. This “referennium” could be taken in a routine way by postmasters just as they now collect the relief doles. It would T think, have the following effects, among others;—lt would cause every parliament to start energetic work instantly instead of trifling with the first years. It would enable a party often to say to its opponents n—“lf you don’t pass this there will be a dissolution." We shall thus have in actual operation the National Government benefits which otherwise are only a fond speculation. While the “Rerferennium” could,, oil the one hand, end a bad parliament it could, on the other hand, give long life to a good one and thus save members from the distasteful toil of a campaign. My propos'd is not free from faults, but it represents ail advance on new grounds. Most of us are tin d of being “Governed” by men we pay to work for us. The “Rerferennium”' is the only means T know by which we can put parliament in its proper place, and effectively govern the Government.