PARLIAMENTARY TERM.

Evening Star, Issue 22820, 1 December 1937, Page 10

PARLIAMENTARY TERM.

There was very little life in the discussion in the House of Representatives yesterday on the Electoral Amendment Bill, which restores triennial Parliaments and introduces a secret ballot for Maori elections. • This measure had been promised by the Government. It could hardly be expected to arouse enthusiasm among Labour members. Naturally those on both sides in the House would prefer a term of four years to one of three years, for the expense, worry, and uncertainty of an election come into the picture. In extending

the life of Parliament by one year the Coalition Ministry, though it put up a good case for the defence, gave the Labour Opposition an opportunity for criticism, of which it made the most. It held up its hands in shocked surprise that the party in power should have the temerity to adopt such an arbitrary course. No allowance was made for the fact that the economic and financial circumstances at the time were very difficult, and the' contention that the Coalition Cabinet was justified in this particular action was hotly repudiated. Righteous indignation on the part of the Labour leaders is now translated into action with the emergence of the Electoral Amendment Bill, which has advanced to the committee stage. Seeing that the Government has failed to fulfil a number of its election promises, it is naturally anxious to put itself on the right side in the matter of the parliamentary term. In Mr Savage’s election indictment on twelve points of the Coalition Government’s administration it was stated:—“lt extended the life of Parliament from three to four years without consulting the people, thus striking a blow at the foundation of constitutional government.” Subsequently, in reiterating his intention to repeal the legislation providing for four-year Parliaments, the Prim© Minister remarked that there was much to be said for a longer Parliamentary term, for three years was not a very long time for any Government to give effect to its policy. “That, however, is a matter which the people must decide, and at the time of the next General Election it might be advisable to hold a referendum on the question of extending the life of future Parliaments.” Mr Savage made it. clear that no decision had been come to on the point, but it was under consideration. New ground was not broken in. last night’s discussion. It is significant that no voice was raised in advocacy of the principle of the three-year term, while some members on both sides of the House indicated their preference for the longer period. When the Bill is passed it will remain to be seen whether the Government, having vindicated itself, will persist with, the referendum idea. Fixing the term is not a matter of principle—simply one of expediency—and it should be for the people to decide.

In explaining the proposal to give the Maoris the secret ballot, the AttorneyGeneral said the new provision would remedy what the Natives have long felt to be a grievance. If that is the case, they have been singularly quiet about it, and it is significant that from his remarks last night Sir Apirana Ngata is not enthusiastic about the change. As he says, there are many Maoris on the verge of illiteracy, and this obviously must create difficulties at the poll. Mr Mason, however, claims that the step the Government is taking in the matter will, to a large extent, remove the discrepancy between the voting methods that now exist for the two races. The Government’s proposal is an effort to help in the development of the Maori race, and is entitled to he regarded with sympathy.