PARTY GOVERNMENT.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17807, 5 July 1923, Page 13

PARTY GOVERNMENT.

HON. J. A. HANAN'S REFORM BILL. (AB3LDGED PBESS ASSOCIATION P.ZPOKT.) WELLINGTON, July 4. In the House of Representatives tonight, the Hon. J. A. Hanan moved the second reading of the Election of Ministers and Party Government Reform Bill. He contended that there were many indisputable evils connected with party government. Frequently national interests were submerged by party interests. Members were not always free to express their views, while the Government was for the most part master, not servant, of the House. If the House desired to get rid of an incompetent Minister, it had to remove all the Ministers, which was absurd. Not leaa absurd was it that members of tho House who represented thousands of people had no voice in the selection of its Ministers. That was a position not conducive to political morality. It left tho door open to political intrigue and mongering. There was great interest in the Bill outside the House, and he asked that members might have a free hand to record their opinion upon it. Mr Sidey, who claimed to have consistently supported the principle of an elective executive, commended the Bill to the consideration of the House, as it contained not only provisions for an elective executive, but many valuable amendments to the Legislative Act that were calculated to abolish corrupt practices at elections. The Hon. C. J. Parr admitted that the party system had evils, but there was no guarantee that an elective executive would get rid of them, or that it would not create a crop of fresh evils.

Mr H. E. Holland said the Labour Party could not support the Bill without material amendment, because it meant coalition in perpetuity, and the Labour Party would not enter a coalition with any party. Mr Massey said he had no objection to the Bill going to its second reading, but ho could not promise to give unlimited time to it in committee, as he had a shrewd suspicion of what waa going to happen when it reached that stage. Mr Hanan admitted that the Bill would notTdo away with party. He (Mr Massey) once thought that they should do away with party, but he now was a firm believer in the party system, because ho was satisfied that no Government could carry on unless they had a strong party behind tham. Without that they could not get their measures through, but beyond that he did not think tne party system should go. They should not go to extremes. The National Cabinet, which was a composite Cabinet, was a success because they were united for one purpose, and one purpose only—to win the war. He did not know how they could have got through the war period in any other way, but a composite Cabinet forced to* carry out general legislation was an impossibility. It would not work, and would be no improvement on what they had to-day. The debate was continued by Mr toung, who supported the Bill, and by Messrs Lysnar, T. W. Rhodes, Nosworthy, and Sir John L\ike, who opposed it. . ■ ' it . At 11.45 p.m. a division was called for, when the second reading of the Bill was defeated by 42 votes to 27. The House rose at 11.55 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow.