WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 27 May 1932, Page 3

WELLINGTON TOPICS

PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT

BY FORCE OF COALITION

(Special Correspondent)

WELLINGTON May 23

The Prime Ministr has not only succeeded in prolonging the life of the present House of’Representatives from three years to four; he also has decided that the four year period should be definitely substituted for the three year period, not only for the present Parliament, but also tor all succeeding Parliaments. He ia in haste and he wishes to have this matter settled forthwith. Of course he holds out as an argument in favour of his scheme the National Government which existed during the Great War, from August 12 1915 to August 25 1919, just four years and ten days in the remote past. This upheaval in the history of the Dominion bears no obvious relation to the economic troubles that are besetting this country at the present time. Trade was good, money was abundant, labour was in demand, the political parties, for the time being, were at rent, and save for the cruel outcomes of war the whole community was flourishing.

AFTER HALF A CENTURY

Tiiere have been many Prime Ministers since 1879, when the last Parliament exceeding three years in duration made its exit—wjtli the exception, already mentioned, of the National Cabinet—but not. one of them, in public at any rate, with the exception of Mr Forbes, suggested during his term of office a return to a period exceeding three years. The Crime Ministers that have held fast to this period during the last fifty-two years are Sir John Hall, Sir Frederick Whittaker, Sir Harry Atkinson, Sir Robert Stout, Mr John Ballance, Mr R. J. Seddon, Sir W. Hnll-Jonea, Sir Joseph Ward, Sir Thomas Mackenzie, Mr W. F. Massey and Sir Francis Doll. Sir Francis Bell, who has deprecated strongly the idea or increasing the length of Parliament without first ascertaining the wishes of the electors, has stated for himself that lie would prefer the four year period; but Mr G. W. Forbes and Mr J. G. Coates have proclaimed since the late general election that they have been in favour of the longer period for years.

IN THE BECINNINC.

Looking back upon the records ol responsible Government in tins country nothing can be found to justify Mr Force s appeal for longer timed Parliaments. It is true that between IboG and 18/5, when the poppulation of this country was small and widely scattered, members of the House of Representatives were elected ror live years and on one occasion retained their seats for so long as lour years and seven months. In 18.9, however, without any legislation on the subject, the period dropped to three years and two months. Between 18/9 and 189/ the average life of Parliament from its opening to its dissolution was two years and six months, in 1897 the maximum period was reduced by legislation from five years to three years, and since then, with the exception of the war period, the lives oi successive parliaments, from the swearing in of members to the dissolution, have averaged approximately two years and seven months.

THE DUBIOUS WAY

The leaders of the Coalition Party having made up their minds, all in good faith no doubt ) that a lour year Parliament would serve their legitimate purpose better than would a three year one, had no considerable dilticulty in persuading their followers that the lengthened period would be to their personal advantage. All that was needed was to slip a clause into the Finance Hill during the closing hours of tlie session, call the rank and file to attention and see that the members of the other chamber had nothing to do with the matter. Subsequently it was announced that the Reform Party had been pledged to a four year Parliament, only a, few months after the death of Mr Massey, and action in this respect had been delayed mainly by the Reform debacle in 1928. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the four year Parliament was one of the conditions Mr Coates brought to the conference which end'd in the formation of the Coalition government.