THE NEW ZEALAND LEGION.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20919, 28 July 1933, Page 17

THE NEW ZEALAND LEGION.

TO Hit EDITOR Or THE PIIESS. J Sir,—l wish to inform "Legionary" I that my previous letter was not supposed to be humorous. It was written with all due seriousness and was, at places, intended to be sarcastic not humor&us! Does "Legionary" mean to tell me that more than 25 persons in Cheviot have joined the legion? If so, well, being a person who values his life, I must refrain from commenting. As I have always contended, it is only a matter of a few fine phrases, and hey, presto! shillings this way and signatures that way. I, however, have no intention of joining as yet. In reference to my "resounding pronouncement," I still consider that 1 am correct. The legion is "a body of persons united in a cause"; therefore it is a party. Dealing chiefly with politics, it must therefore be chiefly a political party If that is not logical reasoning, I should like to know what it really is. I am quite positive that Mr MacGibbon or his co-lecturer mentioned false national balance-sheets. If not they implied it by stating that if trading companies issued like accounts they would be punished for issuing false balance-sheets. Evidently "Legionary" was not at the Cheviot meeting. If the legion can rid the country of bribery and corruption, it is worthy of support in that direction. Personally, I consider it a futile mission. To stamp out such an evil the legion would have to strike at the root of that evil —not at parliament. The legion has recently published a few material suggestions. I agree with the legion on the wisdom of retaining the Legislative Council; but I suggest that the membership be reduced to 20. The legislative Council should not be elected —not by the people, anyway. Were nominations allowed for an open election there would be a multitude of candidates and much confusion and expense. I consider thai the council should be nominated by the Lower House and selected by the GovernorGeneral. The term of membership could be double that of the Lower House, half of the members being elected after each general election. Ten members, say, would be required. The Lower House should nominate, say, 15 men and the Governor-General select the 10 required. At first appearances reducing the membership of the Lower House appears to be reasonable. Yet to-day each member represents approximately 18,000 people. If the house is reduced to, say, 54 members each member would represent 27,000-odd people. Strictly speaking each member would represent a minority of those people. For instance, reduce the membership of the Lower House and we would see an increase in the number of candidates. There would be a Conservative, United, Labourite, Legionary, Independent, Communist, and Social Creditor. That would mean seven candidates for one electorate, and the successful candidate would probably represent about 5000 people out of a total of 27,000. No person could call that government by a majority. A Lower House consisting of 54 members, instead of 80 as at present, may be less expensive: but value cannot be measured solfcly by expense. "Legionary" must not run away with the idea that the total population of New Zealand will join the legion. In so far as forms, etc., associated with the party system are concerned, I contend once more that it is absolutely impossible to abolish government by a garty in a democratic country. I am unaware of any democratic country without a party government. I fancy that at Cheviot I heard Mr Mac Gibbon state that the present council is overworked. Notwithstanding, I am decidedly against the suggestion that the Legislative Council should have any say in electing the Executive Council and more so in the case of the Prime Minister. The former should be elected solely by the Lower House, and the latter, to be just, by the people as in a mayoral election. However, the Prime Minister could be elected by the Lower House in order to save us from dozens of aspiring Prime Ministers. Casual vacancies on the Executive Council, too,

should be filled only by the Lower I consider that the redistribution of electoral districts would be a matter. If the Lower House is reduced to 54 the country could be divided into an equal number of zones, witn more or less equal populations. The same zones could be used for both local body and parliamentary elections. Natural boundaries for electoral districts are out of the question 0./ ing to the population being unevenly distributed. . The legion is convinced that a planned economic system Is necessary to co-ordinate consumption and production. That is an indisputable fact, but unfortunately the legion gives us no idea of its proposed economic system. If the legion labours under the idea that there must be more work, or in other words, a redoubling of our powers of production, the legion is doomed to have its dreams rudely shattered. There will always be millions of what we at present call 'unemployed," and the sooner we realise that fact the better. Mr Ramsay MacDonald stated recently that under the very best of conditions 2,000,000 of Britain's workers would never be employed again. The International Labour Bureau of the League of Nations estimates that 14,000,000 people in Europe will never find a place in industry again. The Washington Bureau of Statistics stated that 55 per cent, of the working population of the United States, even on a basis of 1928-29 levels of production, are permanently displaced. Those numbers will increase as machinery increases. Even in New Zealand several thousands of the present unemployed can give up all hope of being absorbed into their trades again. Therefore, an economic system that will allow us to pay decent wages to our unfortunate fellow citizens is our only salvation. I do not favour the total abolition of the Address-in-Reply debate, but respectfully suggest to the legion that the time for the debate be cut down to a maximum of 20 minutes a member. Space allows me little chance of informing "Legionary" of the greater evils of government without a party. Except for stating that all the disadvantages that are put down to party systems are inherent in political life of any kind I will say nothing further at the moment. I trust that "Legionary," having read this, will "weigh and consider," and not jump to hasty conclusions.—Yours, etc., T. E. WILLIAMSON. Domett, July 27, 1933.