PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 431, 16 January 1933, Page 7

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

(To the Editor). Sir, — It is now only a matter of days before Parliament again resumes after its rathep long recess. Needless to say the approaching meeting is awaited with the keenest anticipation by all sections of the community inasmuch as it is then that the Government is to reveal its longawaited plan of economic reconstruction. If we are to judge from its past performance it is quite valid to doubt as to whether the present Government is capable of producing a plan that will in any way relieve, the present desperate condition of this country. Certainly its past record is not inspiring. It has merely produced a series of palliatives which have failed in their purpose and it may be truthfully said that so far as Government aetion is concerned the last condition of New Zealand is worse than the first. The political history of the past two years has proved that New Zealanders are a remarkably patient people, but it is doubtful if their patience will extend much further. The signs are not lacking that the Government is getting its last chance and that if it f ails to achieve anything of real value it will have to go. It is doubtful, however, if at the present time, it is possible to secure a better Government. Certainly the present array of Parliamentary talent is not impressive and in any case the present Parliamentary system, does not allow of a display of originality or genius. So long as Parliament continues to be dominated by the party system, and so long as the government is composed of only the members of one party, the country can expect nothing of value from the work of its politicians. The plain fact is that both Parliament and the Government are not truly representative of the people and therefore are hopelessly out of touch with the real problems to be faced. • Therefore it would seem that reform of our system of government is an urgent nepessity. The countrj' can no -longer afford to be the plaything of political parties; it has suffered too often from the organised stupidity of politicians who, in their efforts to retain power, will embark upon any mad scheme, at whatever cost, if such scheme will gain them votes. This factor has played no small part in producing the present desperate economic situation. Any scheme of parliamentary reform should have a two-fold object, it should first be designed to make it impossible for any party to gain an absolute ascendency, and secondly, it should make parliament answerable at all times to the people, i.e., it should give the people the power of veto. This proposal is radical, but it is justified by the circumstances. The most effectiye 'way in which the power of political parties may be curbed is in the adoption of proportional representation. This system will give representation to every

snaae oi political opmion, jnciumng minorities. Such a diffusion of representation will prevent the dominance of Parliament by any single party and indeed, carried to its logical conclusion, the party reform system will break up the party system. But even the adoption of the party reform system is not sufficient to secure a government that is truly expressive of the people's will. Although it will break the power of the major parties, it will not prevent combinations which may be just as destruetive in their action as single parties are now. Therefore, it is necessary that the people should exercise a positive control over the qctions of their legislators. The referendum would give this control inasmuch as it would make the people the, final arbitrators in matters of policy. As far as New Zealand is concerned the principle of the referendum is already in use in that local bodies are subject to it to a certain extent. For I example, ratepayers have the right to det'ermine the system of rating and i they also have the power of approv1 i ing, or disapproving, of a loan pro- ' posal.

The system has worked well as regards local bodies and there is no reason why it should not be extended to the realm of national politics. For example, no tax should be imposefi unless the prior consent of the taxpayers is obtained by direct vote. Similarly no loan proposal should be adopted except under the same conditions, and the principle of the referendum could be extended beyond the range of fiscal problems. Other policy measures readily suggest themselves as being amenable to the referendum as for example the wagecut policy, the arbitration policy and so forth. As I mentioned before, these proposals are radical, but they are justified by the circumstances inasmuch that the present parliamentary system has failed. As it is at present 'the most vital questions of public importance are degraded into questions of mere political expediency. Moreover the community is at the mercy of a few men who are in no way distinguished for intellectual ability, or mental capacity. Why should we eontinue to allow such a body to' order the present and dispose of the future? During the last few years it has frequently been asserted that democraey is a failure, but the fact is that we have no demoeracy. We have , merely exchanged- the absolutism of kings for the absolutism of parliament. I submit that the proposals I have outlined will make democraqy a ■ pfacticjil possibility, inasmuch that they will give to the individual citi^©J^b^figh^o^decisioninhisown