The Daily News. SATURDAY, JULY 15, 1922. "THE SAME BAD OLD WAY.”

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1922, Page 4

The Daily News . SATURDAY, JULY 15, 1922. "THE SAME BAD OLD WAY.”

The contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate made by the member for Dunedin Central on .Wednesday bristled with antiGovernment darts. Possibly his most convincing statement is to be found in the assertion that “we were still going on in the same bad old way.” There were methods which Mr. Statham denounced, and practices he reprobated, but in the direction of useful, constructive criticism, the speech was woefully deficient. N« doubt he meant well, but in these days it is efficiency, initiative and constructive ability that count, and it is because these qualities are mostly conspicuous by their absence in the House, that Parliament still goes on in the same bad, old way. He was quite right in asserting at the outset of his speech that the first need of the country is to set its house in order. Naturally, if that work is satisfactorily accomplished, the machinery of government will work smoothly and effectively,. simply for the reason that the process of putting the house in order will include meeting reasonable requirements, as well as remedying defects that now exist. There would be much to be scrapped, more to be patched, and a fair proportion of new material to be provided, yet, even then, there would still be the ‘‘ins and the outs.” and the inevitable battle for reversing positions so long as party government rules. No such thing as a perfect government exists or can exist in this terrestrial sphere, and most reasonable people are quite content that those who govern a democratic country shall as nearly as possible be in sympathy with the aims and aspirations of the majority of the people, and honestly pursue that policy which is deem ed best to secure the welfare of the community as a whole, without favoring or penalising any section. When Mr. Statham contended that what was wanted was more efficiency and less dominance of one man in Parliament, he certainly paid a great compliment to Mr. Massey at the expense of the other members of the Cabinet. It is the Premier’s misfortune, not his fault, that he has to bear a burden and responsibility that is far too heavy for any one man, no matter how strong a man he may be physically and mentally, but an elective executive would not provide a remedy, as the majority would-still rule. Moreover, Mr. Statham ignores the fact that members of Cabinet for the time being are —theoretically at least— Ministers of the Crown, and as such part of the Constitution. It is a harmless fiction, and unless any change is to be absolutely advantageous, there are good reasons why attempts to tinker with the Constitution should not be undertaken. -As a matter of fact the issue rests with the people, for Parliament is just what the people make it. and so is the Ministry. The question of the Upper House i is quite another matter. Mr. Statham remarked that it “was only convenient for destroying private] members’ Bills which were not to the liking of the Prime Minister.”] Many years have passed since a reform was promised in the method of constituting the Legislative Council, but it still remains as a channel of political patronage, though occasionally merit is to be found in the nominees. Even so the waste and expense are far greater than is justified. Certainly. at the present time, it fits in with the charge of going along in the same old. bad way. There is a great scope for conscientious and able members of Parliament to mark out a new and good way, but they are human and no more free from human frailties than the rest of the community. The real lack in Parliament is constructive and adaptive ability, having also the advantage of foresight. If members desire to show a tendency to new and better ways, let them first put. an end to the time wasted over the Address-in-Reply, and then we may hope for more performance and less promises.