THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 103, 29 October 1945, Page 6

THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS

Sir—Your leader on "Flouting the People's Rights" contains a very great element of truth when you say the Government is about to do something which flouts one of the cardinal principles of democracy," ThV^iV nT of the law is certainty. If the Government proceeds with its ideas ,as to the rectification- of the electoral law without being first adopted by the Labour Conference as part of its election manifesto, then it is clear that the Government can institute a political policy without regard to . the Labour Conference, or the Labour Party, on which it depends for its support. Mr. J A Lee's Democratic Labour Party resulted from the fact that the Labour Government would not-abide by the policy of the party by fulfilling it; and now the Government is initiating something which has never'been a plank in the policy of the party. The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) told the United' Nations at the San Francisco Conference that "the League of Nations failed because its members would not perform what they undertook* to perform. It failed because the rule of expediency replaced that of moral principles." If the Government proceeds as to the country quota without first obtaining the authority of its Labour Conference by incorporating such principle in its election manifesto, the Government and the Prime Minister will be denying those very principles which he so solemnly affirmed on behalf of New Zealand at -the San Francisco Conference: "I would there-^ fore stress that, unless in the future we have the moral rectitude and determination to stand by our engagements and principles, then the procedure laid down in this new organisation will avail us nothing."—l am, etc.; ' T. F. SIMPSON..

Sir, —This country needs simple sincerity, and your correspondent. "Farmer's Wife," expresses it to the full. In reply to her, may I suggest that the most important problem facing farmers and city-dwellers alike is that of ensuring effective control ot our Parliamentary representatives after election. How may this problem be solved in relation to our present party system? In my opinion, a practicable solution would be to make the representatives answerable for Parliamentary performance of their election mandates to electorate control boards. Each electorate would be served by its own board of trustees elected, say, every three years on a non-party basis and subject to the provisions of existing statutory trustee law. Every elector, irrespective of party affiliation, would then have free access to his board and be certain that his opinion on any electorate matter would be welcomed and faithfully recorded. Furthermore, each board would be of invaluable assistance to the Parliamentary member in covering fully the area of his electorate and would protect fully the rights of the minorities whose party is not in power. Again, any radical change of party policy of the Government in power would have to be endorsed by the electors through ! the boards before it could be embodied in new legislation. In other words, it would have to get*the mandate of the people. Under the above system domination of the people's will by factions foreign to the electorate would be impossible. The size of the electorates could be enlarged, the number of Parliamentary representatives reduced, and the work of Parliament put through in a thoroughly democratic and efficient manner. am, GUINIvm