LIFE OF PARLIAMENT

Grey River Argus, 17 August 1934, Page 8

LIFE OF PARLIAMENT

Extension Criticised DEBATE ON BILL. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, August 13. Tn the House Mr. Forbes moved the second reading of the Electoral Amendment (No. 2) Bill. He said many people over a number of years had considered that three years did not give a Parliament a proper opportunity to transact business. It was the duty of Parliament to give the people a lead in a matter of that sort, and the Bill would give an opportunity for review, and Members would have a definite situation when the election came The matter was not of particular importance to the Government, as it was a measure for the future. Many members, particularly Me. Coates, had for years advocated an extension of the term of Parliament. The business community said frequent elections had a disturbing effect on business. There was the expense to members who had to contest elections. No member looked forward to elections, (because of expense. On a new Government coming into office, it took a Minister a year to make himself acquainted with the details of his department. The next year came the question of carrying out the policy ot the Government, and the third year was election year, and he was getting ready for the election. There was also the question of how long it took to put a policy into operation. An election comes with a policy half carried out The electors did not have a fair opportunity of judging the effect of the policy. The Opposition could say, he added, that it would repeal the measure if elected. The Government was giving a lead to the people.

Mr. Samuel believed there would he deep resentment against any member who voted for four years, when elected for three. He considered the bill was a betrayal of the people. TTe had been asked by branches of the Farmers’ Union in his district to protest against the measure. Mr. Barnard thought the Government should consider the period of election campaign and give candidates plenty of time to get round the electorates, especially country electorates. In 1931, the campaign was limited to 16 days. He protested against whirlwind campaigns, the result of which, people returned to Parliament I representatives they would not return if they had time to hear the whole aspects of the matters put before them.

Mr. Fraser said the Government had no idea of the feeling of the people regarding the election, and was treating the electors in a most unwarranted manner. Three years should be sufficient to allow a Government to carry out a policy. Such men as Grey, Ballance and Seddon did not require or ask for more than that term, which for 55 years had proved the most useful ami most democratic period. Mr. Campbell said that at some elections he had advocated four or five-year Parliaments. He consider ed the term should be four years to start wilh, and this could be increased later to five if found necessary. He. disagreed with long election campaigns and thought they should b% short and sharp. Mr. Langstone, said the Bill was merely to smother up legislation. He protested against the extension, which was wrong in principle and pernicious in practice. People were justified in claiming an election in the present year. Mr. Reid said he was convinced the four-year Parliament would produce better legislation, as members would have more experience. Mr. Semple said he believed that the weight of evidence in the country favoured three-year Parliaments. There was no urgent need for the measure. People should bo consulted before it was passed. He declared that never before in the House was there a Government more unpopular than the present Government. No Government had the right to ignore the wishes of the people.