New Zealand Politics: A Study Of Personnel: Occupations and Ages of Ministers and Members

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 133, 29 February 1936, Page 8

New Zealand Politics: A Study Of Personnel: Occupations and Ages of Ministers and Members

(By

LEICESTER and CAROLINE WEBB.)

(IV.)

The three previous articles in this series have contained an analysis of the ages, occupations and educations of meml|rs of the New Zealand Parliaments and Ministries from the inauguration of representative government in 1854 to the present day. A general summary of the results invites some striking conclusions. The average of ages, both for members of Parliament aud for Cabinet Ministers, rises in a steady progression from about 40 in 1854 to 60 in 1931. Between 1912 and the present time there has been only one Cabinet Minister under 40 and only 14 Cabinet Ministers under 50 in a total of 119. Parallel with this increase in the ages, there has been a rapid deterioration in educational standards. Between 1854 and 1871 only one-sixth of the members of Parliament for whom information is available had only primary educations; but between 1911 and 1935, more than half of the members of Parliament had only, primary educations. Of 102 Cabinet Ministers who held office between 1856 and 1873, six had only primary educations. Of 130 Cabinet Ministers who held office between 1911 and 1935, 52 had only primary educations. These contrasts, as readers of the previous articles in this series will realise, are not the result merely of the decline of the early colonial aristocracy which held political power in the early period of New Zealand’s parliamentary history. The decline in the educational standard goes on steadily throughout practically the whole history of the New Zealand Parliament. The exception is a slight improvement in the Parliament elected in 1935. Though the occupational classifications lend themselves less easily to generalisation, they confirm the impression conveyed by the other classifications. The general tendency is for the professional element to decline and for politics to be dominated increasingly by small farmers, small traders and shopkeepers, and trade union secretaries.

To draw the obvious conclusions from the figures presented in these articles is to incur the risk of much abuse and misunderstanding. The political outlook of many New Zealanders is a curious blend of sentimentality and inverted snobbishness. They recognise the value of competitive examinations as a method of selecting efficient and enlightened civil servants They do not raise the cry of snobbishness or class distinction when a firm insists that its office boys shall have passed matriculation. They Insist that it shall be possible for anyone of average Intelligence and very limited means to obtain a university degree. But suggest to them that intelligence and literacy are as desirable in members of Parliament as in office boys and they will retort hotly that there are many fools with university degrees and that Abraham Lincoln had no schooling. It is surely time, in this country at any rate, to admit that a good education is not a mark of wealth or privilege. And it is surely time, to admit that the business of governing the country is a responsible business, requiring the services of men who can at least measure up to the standards of intelligence and education prescribed for office boys. It is quite true that, men without formal education have been strikingly successful in politics as in other occupations. Few will argue from this that education is a handl-

cap in politics; and fewer still would deny that, over the long period a fall in the standard of education among politicians, particularly when it is accompanied by an increase in the average of ages, must adversely affect the quality of Government. When a Cabinet Minister is appointed in New Zealand the mathematical probability is, as things are at present, that he will be more than 60 years old, and that he will have had only an elementary education. The low and still declining standard of ability and education among politicians in this and other countries is excused by some politicians on the grounds that ability and education are not the primary essentials. Parliament, they point out, does not govern the country; it is even doubtful whether Parliament legislates, since the power to frnnie measures and to decide what amendments shall be accepted lias in practice passed to the executive. The true function of Parliament is to represent; and all that is necessary is that it should fairly reflect the social composition of the community, that it should be a microcosm of society. It is difficult to accept such a narrow interpretation of the meaning of the term “representative government” and still more difficult to believe that, if the interpretation is a correct one, representative government has any future in the modern world. If an elective body is nothing more than a social microcosm, a means of keeping the Government in touch with the wishes and opinions of the country, it is largely unnecessary. The Government of to-day learns what the people are - thinking from the Press, from public meetings, from resolutions passed by the many functional associations which are an increasingly important part of modern social organisation, and from the confidential reports of its own agents in the electorates. And these sources are certainly a much more reliable guide than the opinions of members of Parliament expressed in debate. The truth is that, to be representative in the truest sense of the word, an elective assembly cannot be content merely to reflect the general level of intelligence and ability in the community as a whole. Social needs are not written on the surface of affairs for all to read; nor are they always understood by those who feel them. The government which expects guidance from popular • clamour is heading for disaster. Those who would represent the community must have the ability and the intelligence to understand the community.

It would seem, too, that the effect of the declining quality of membership in elective bodies upon the quality of government has’been unduly minimised. Admittedly representative bodies do not govern, in the positive sense of the term. But in two ways they do affect the quality of government. It has to be remembered that, under the British system of parliamentary government, members of the executive must be chosen from the elective body. It follows that a decline m the standard of membership in the elective body must be followed by a decline in the standard of membership in the executive, a proposition which the figures quoted in the first part of this paper show to be true for New Zealand at any rate. Again, elective bodies do have an important influence on the quality of legislation. It is true that the executive frameb legislation and reserves to itself the right to decide what amendments shall be accepted. But in practice the executive is seldom willing to appear to coerce the elective chamber; and unless the issue is vitally important it will prefer a compromise to a wrangle. The consequence is that in Great Britain and the Dominions almost all legislation bears the marks of the parliamentary process. And they are disfiguring marks. The proved superiority of delegated to direct legislation is a testimony to the negative influence, of elective bodies upon government.