LONGER PARLIAMENTS

Taranaki Daily News, 8 November 1922, Page 4

LONGER PARLIAMENTS

Some political candidates, in their election speeches, are recommending the extension of the term of Parliament from three to five years. It is suggested that the longer life thus afforded would tend to give greater stability to Parliament and independence to members. We regard this as a retrogressive movement, and one Which will not receive the support of electors. The term at 'Home is quinquennial, but very rarely does it happen that a Parliament runs its full course. Crises arise, Governments go out of favor, members lose touch with the electors, and a dissolution follows. Where, then, is the stability and independence at Home? As a matter of fact, political conditions are more stable here than in Britain. Yet we have the three years’ against their five years’ term. The shorter period tends to keep members, in touch with their constituencies, and does not, as is represented, seriously affect the effective working, of Parliament. In proof of this we only have to look back upon the legislative records of past Governments. Were the period extended, there would certainly be a clamor for the introduction of the

Swiss system of the initiative and recall under which electors would have the right to initiate legislation and to recall any member who had “kicked over the traces.” Far better the present system, with all its limitations, than this ultra-democratic principle, which, by the way, is warmly espoused by the Labor Party, a sufficient reason in the minds of many people why its enactment is not desirable.