LIFE OF PARLIAMENT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 368, 1 November 1932, Page 4

LIFE OF PARLIAMENT

The Government has apparently determined to extend the precedent which it seh, last session by ,su(bm'itting" legislalfcion fixing the term of New Zealand parliaments at four yeaTs- instead of three as in the past. It' will be remembered that the pre- ' sent Parliament extended its j own life by including a section in the Finance- Act of last session but that proyjsion Was framed to apply only to the present Parliament and not to its successors in office. The Government, at the time, was accused of using its majority to prolong its own life without extending the prolongation to future parliaments. That objection was justified although it is. now largely j answered by the Government's rather belated move to establish the four year parliamentary term as a permaneney. The Gov- | ernment would have made a bet- | ter impression in this matter if it had completed the alteration I at the time instead of delaying it | until the present juncture. Act- , ually, there are many advantages j to commend a four year term and on their respective merits, J there is no doubt that the new j proposal has more in its favour j than the existing order. It is the methods which have been jpursued in making this alteration which have aroused protest. The Government had an exeel- : lent case to present for an alteration of the term, but it did not I 1 ' see fit to take the electors into ; its confidence. The extension of S the life of Parliament was not j mentioned from the hustings and it was not until after - the Coalition was returned with a big majority that the Government announced, its antentions. In this it placed itself in a most invidious position and has largely itself to blame for the storm of protest which it aroused. Actually there was nothing to prevent Coalition members from placing the proposal squarely before the electors and asking for a verdict. A four year term, as we have said, has many advantages and these would have been perceived if fairly presented. Parliamentary experience has shown that the three year term does not function satisfactprijy. The first year is largely spent in settling down and the third in preparing for a settling up — in other words, going to the hustings and doing it all over again. As a result, the second year is really the only one in which whole time work is done. The extra year would give the Government an opportunity to formulate a long-er-termed policy. In.the past, one of the faults of political policy has been shortsightedness and anything which will tend to eradicate this is welcome. It is interesting to note that students of political science are practieally unaniinous in their condemnation oi: triennial Parliaments qnd have in some cases, drawn a coni, parison between the stability of the British House of Commons, with its five year term, and the hurly-burly which has characterised some of the legisla/tures of the .Dominions. In" practice,, theref ore, the four year term will probably prove an advantage. It is true that it curtails the righte of the electors but agairist this must be set the reduced costs and the acceleration of business which it should engepder. The Government, however, has made a mistake in not placing these matters before the electors before taking the alteration intq its own hands. Had the Coalition outlined its intentions as part of its policy and made it plain that it proposed to establish the four year term as a permaneney, the proposal would have deserved support and probably received it. As it was* however, the Goali-

tion waited until it became the Government before announcing ifs intentions and then delaye(j a further period before giving the measure general applicatiqn. Under these circumstances, the proceedings smack rather of an after-thought and another lost opportunity for the politicians to-be frank with the people