HOW PARLIAMENT IS FLOUTED.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1301, 2 December 1911, Page 19

HOW PARLIAMENT IS FLOUTED.

THE WARD AUTOCRACY. DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES THROWN TO THE WINDS. Is Sir Joseph Ward the 6errant or tho master of the pooplo? Constitutionally, wo all know that in a democratic country such as ours ia supposed to he, Ministers of tho Crown aro tho eon-ants of Parliament and public.

Tho present continuous Ministry, however, has been bo busy during tho last twenty years in trampling down constitutional safeguards that it now feels itself strong enough to cast aside all prctenoo of bowing to tho will of Parliament. Tho position was bad enough in Mr. Seddon's latter days, but Seddon never at any period of his career displayed tho coldblooded indifference to the rights of Parliament and people that has disfigured the unhappy record of his successor. In 1906, when Seddon died, tho Wellington 'TJvening Post," then a plainspoken critic of Ministerial methods, said in the course of a rovicw of tho political situation: "One by one the most precious privileges of the House have been whittled away—the control of the country's finances, the right to a thorough knowledge of its affairs, the power of initiative and to a large extent of free criticism. . . . The Ministry, in case after oase, has usurped what onco belonged to Parliament; and the whole' dutj of its supporters is to vote os they are told and when they aro told, and to draw their own salaries and a fair cjuota of public money for their respective districts in return." Who toU say that this wag not tho abBoluto truth? Who can deny that the same state of things exists to-day? A Striking Contrast, Let us glance at tho record of Sir Joseph Ward as a democrat. Ono of the big ovents in his career was the offor of n Dreadnought to Great Britain in 1903. Ten years before Mr. Seddon had offered a contingent of mounted rifles for scrrice in the South African War, Seddon had some respeot for Parliament, and it is instructive to oontrast bis methods when

the Empire was in a 6tate of war with Sir Joseph Ward's in a timo of peace. On September 23, 1599, Parliament being in session, Seddon moved, and it was agreed," that the first Contingent bo dispatched. In December tho Government desired to second a seoond contingent, and as Parliament had risen Mr. Seddon sent a circular telegram to members in tho course of which he said:— In respect of the present position in the Transvaal, the Government aro of the opinion that in tho interests of the Empire Now Zealand should send a second contingent 'similar to tho first. Recognising the constitutional position, and BEFORE ANYOFFER ■IS MADE to the Imperial authorities, OR DEFINITE RESPONSIBILITY ASSUMED. I desire to have your viows on the question. . . The telegram pro&cdcd to set out in detail what was proposed, and the offer, was mado subsequently in tlio light of members' desires. Now for the Dreadnought offer—a matter of millions, as against tons of thousands of pounds. Hero is tho first message dispatched by Sir Joseph Ward to London in 1909:— "Tho New Zealand Government offers to defray tho cost of immediate building, and aiming, <me firstclass battleship of the latest type, and, if subsequent events show it to be necessary, will also provide the cost of a Becond warship of the same typo."

There was no preliminary consultation of members of Parliament, and not a word in tho message to indicate that ratification "by Parliament was neoessary, and had not boon obtained. Tho action probably stands alone in tlho annals of a aomociatio State. Secret Wirc-Puiling. Tho only consultation of any sort was with the editors of a number of newsipapers who received, per telegram, a precious document marked, "strictly confidential." This piece of secret wire-pulling was exposed bv the lato Mr. T. 13. Taylor, who road the message in Parliament. In ft Sit Joseph Ward said to tho editors:— "I would like to impress upon you that the situation is much graver than is generally supposed or has been published. . . , "I therefore feel it my duty to toll you confidentially our motive and desire to avoid publication of anything alarming, and hence havo made this strictly confidential." It appeared subsequently that the Government had no information other than what was available to every newspaper reader, and tho telegram was morely an impudent piece of bluff to round up the newspapers lo support a {.'luring outrage upon Parliament and tho democracy, bo hard pushed was Sir Joseph Ward to find evidence of his alarming crisis that lie mused oven tho members of tho liouso to laugh by reading; with great seriousness an extract from w.i article liv a Socialist writer published in a seiisatiim-mungeriui* Loudon halfpenny paper- This was his piece-do-resistanco in support of committing New Zealand without authority to a liability that might Hto nui into about four arilHrav). and In point of fact trill , total Bzadj tro milliona.

The member* of Cabinet appear to have been bluffed into agreeing to the offer just as wore tho public. M.r. Hogg, after bis retirement from tko Ministry, stated in Parliament in this connection:— "The reason why I acquioaocdinthat extraordinary proposal was beeauso it was placed 'before myself and other members of the Cabinet as being a. matter of great urgency—that a | terrible crisis had arisen, and that there was something mysterious, something terrific occurring iu another part of tho world, and that we nrast come to tho rescue of Old In the face of that, what icas 0110 to do h (HanBard, Vol. U7, p. 218.) ! There was absolutely nothinp to proyont Sir Joseph Ward from consulting members of Parliament by telegram baforo making an offer that could only properly oorno from Parliament itself.

TAT.-r,, - i.-.:C23R 8 . 1 !" He had gloried in the policy fij of the Liberal party. He be- g came a supporter of that partyi [| and followed them for years. H . . . Bnt what did he find H to-day ? As he stood here to-day 0 Oa supporter of that party, he n found they were absolutely dc- U a parting from anything that one a 0 might be prepared to concede u K as Liberal principles." H | —Mr. ROSS, Liberal tnem- j| M ber for Pahiatua, in Parliament j!j § on November 18,1910. W 8 _ ®

SEDDON, IN 1899, RESPECTED THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. WARD, IN 1909, CONTEMPTUOUSLY TRAMPLED THEM UNDER FOOT. Sir Joseph and the Money-lenders. Now, let us turn to tho way Sir Joseph Ward fights against letting tho democratic daylight into his transactions with the London money-lenders on behalf of Now Zealamd, Leans aro only floated by paying substantial commissions to different people to push them off. Tho amount paid away on every million raised by New Zealand represents a handsome competency. Is it not

right and proper that the public should know at tho earliest moment all about theso loan transactions? There are thinra the people liavo a right to know. Sir Joseph Ward—who ono would think would take espocial pains to have tho finances under his control thoroughly optra ajid above-board—gives only such details as ho pleasea, nnd when ho pleases. In November, 1910, Mr. James Allen in tho Houso of Representatives, moveii that this.clauso bo inserted in tho loans Amendment Bill:— 'Tarticulara of the terms upon ixhich loans aje' floated, together with all costs arad expenses of raising the sara<% shall bo laid beforo Parliament within 12 months of tho floating of the game." Tho Ministerial majority came to'heel, and voted far tho rejection of the clauso, which was defeated by 15 votes to 27. Mr. Herdman then moved that tho particulars be supplied within two years. This was defeated by 44 votes to 28, Mr. Greensliido changing over. Sir Joseph Ward declared that ho ragarded tho clause as "A PIECE OF POLITICAL OFFENSIVENESS"! An Extraordinary Attitude. Hero ia another case. Are vou aware that tho "Liberal" majority, in Parlia-

! "I should like first to say n word or H j two with regard to the proposal to pay i i off the National debt. . . Now there is if only one way, in my opinion, of payino H loff either a national or an individual ft debt, and that is in the first place, to 3 stop borrowing. When that has been fj done it will be time to think of some H method of paying off the indebtedness. K But so long as we continue borrowing, H 5 and borrowing in excess of the amount fi | we lay aside, we are simply going deeper fj 3 into the mire—we are in the quid- H I sands."—Mr. HOGG, in Parliament M | July 29, 1910. ' El

ment has practioally instrnoted tho Ministry to take no notice of the opinion of tho Houso as expressed by tho reductions mudo in itoms of expenditure by Parliament? One of the main battles of British constitutional history has been to assort tlio right of tho people's representatives in Parliament to tbo supreme control of tho public purse. Tho House, iu making its grants for tho purposes of carrying on the (fovornment, sits in Committee of Snpplv. Tho Ward Ministry has repeatedly ignored reductions in proposed items of expenditure) ordered by the Committed of Supply v.lica moved na an indication to tlio Government to adopt a given conrso of action. Last session, tho following motion tcis moved in tho House;— "That when an item of tho Eotimates ia rednocd m an iiciioation to t&a QarroniSßi tbat t&a Committed

nfSupply is of o certain opinion, mich redjucfaon shall bo taken aa an instruction bv tho Executive, and oomplicd with accordingly," Tho motion was rejected by 36 vote to 23. Parliament thus Kaid in effect to tho Ministry: ''Please treat our decisions aa so much wasto paiper. Take no notice of us." After this exhibition it is difficult (o discover auj- reason at all why Parliament, urnwr existing oonditions, should remain m existence. The members who voted for this negation of tho right of Parliament to assert its power ovor tho Cabinet deserve to have tlioir names recorded, i'hey were:— _ Ministers; Sir Joseph Ward, Sir .Tames Carroll, Mr. Fowlds, Mr. Ngata, Mr/ ]?.- M'Kenzic, Mr. T. Mackenzie, and Mr. Buddo. Ministerial suppor-'-f rs .'' Messrs. Arnold, Buxton, Colvin, Craigie, Dillon, T. Duncan, Ell, Forbes, Glover, Greensladc, Hall, Hogun, Luke, Macdonald, M'Laren, Parata, Poland, Reed, lloss, RusselL Seddon, Sidey, steward, Stallworthy. 13, H. Taylor, Davey, and Witty. Every clector should make a. note of this list and bear it in nijnd when recording his vote, I n T 1 " 3 contemptuous way in which the ' * treated _ Parliament with regard to the Coronation invitations will bo fresh in the public mind. Invitations to m< jii ere House of Representatives • and the Legislative Council to attend tho,. fattmties in London were forwarded through tho ordinary channels, but woto intercepted by tho Cabinet, and never reached tho Council. Mr..Millar, speaking on behalf of the Ministry in Parliament in August 10 last said the reason tho Legislative Councillora did not receive their invitations was because the Imperial authorities had offered' to pay thbir expenses! This, Mr. Millar thought an 1 insult, and therefore the invitations were suppressed, Curious reasoning this. J- . Tho upshot of tho matter was that tho Government prouiiscd to handover all "except confidential portions of tho correspondonce. This was never done. The contemptuous way tho Legislative Council was treated in tho matter is described elsewhere. Resolutions Ignored, Tho present heads of the oontinTtona Ministry have quite settled down into the. practice of complying with tho resolutionsof Parliament only when it suits them. In 1908 the Legislative Council passed a resolution in connection with tho claims of Mr. Joshua Jones to tho Mokau estate "That the matter should ho referred lo a Royal Commission, and that, pending such being held, further deal- " ings with tho land bo prohibited." This wa9 completely ignored. So was tho recommendation of the Select Committee of tho House of Representatives which, in November. 1010, reported upon the Hino charges. Tho ComiuHtco passed this resolution:— "Tho Committee is of opinion that legislation Ehould bo passed making it illegal 'for a member of Parliament to. act on his own behalf or on behalf of any. other person in negotiating the sale of an estate to the Crown." The Ward Government has done nothing whatever to give effect to this. It apparently does not believe in placing tho public interest above tho interests of its supporters iu Parliament. In 1909 members wero made to stultify themselves over the Payment of a sum of JMOO to Mr. W. P, Reeves for acting as "Financial Advisor in London." Mr. Reeves had retired from the High Com-, missionership, and members naturally wanted to know why his successor could not do all that was required. Tho voto was, therefore, struok out of tho Ustimates by 35 vote to 25. Sir Josopli Ward was resolved to havn tho money for Mr. Reoves, and .reintroduce tho item on tho Supplementary Estimates—a proceeding contrary to Parliamentary practice—and had it passed, a liumbor of Government members revers- .. ing their .votes .at tho dictation of tho ~ I'rimo Minister."' 1 ""' ' '' Enough instances have been cited to show to what depths of degradation Parliament has been reduced under a Ministry which litis the effrontery to' pose as progressive, Liberal, and democratic. So far from going "back to democracy" since Seddon's days, Sir Joseph Ward aiul thoso associated with liim have done their best to turn Parliamentary Government into farco and a by-word. IF YOU CARE FOR THE FUTURE OF NEW ZEALAND, YOU CANNOT DO OTHERWISE THAN VOTE FOR'CANDIDATES : PLEDGED TO TURN OUT THE MEN WHO HAVE DRAGGED THEIR PARTY AND THEIR COUNTRY'S INSTITUTIONS IN THE DUST.

GOTO-