“TOO MUCH LEGISLATION.”

Hawera Star, Volume L, 25 October 1930, Page 4

“TOO MUCH LEGISLATION.”

In his address at the opening of the conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, now in session at Mount Cook, the president gave it as his opinion that the Dominion is suffering from too much legislation and that it would be of advantage if the General Election were held once in seven years, instead of at intervals of three years. There are many persons who will agree that this country gets too much legislation, but no one has more cause to denounce the number, and the ill-digested nature, of our statutes than the legal profession. The multiplicity of amendments of Acts, and the over-lapping and distortion of original principles which they create, must surely cause our lawyers to agree in their inmost hearts with laymen who denounce the law as “an ass.” It is safe to assume, also, that the layman would be shocked if he made a study of all the alterations made to the laws of the country by other laymen who sit in Parliament. Apart altogether, however, from the legal standpoint, it is true that it is possible to have too much legislation when that legislation hedges private enterprise and national progress with too many expensive restrictions. But it is extremely doubtful if many of us would care to go so far as the president of the Associated Chambers of Commorce and urge that the life of Parlia,merit bo extended to seven years. The I longer term would be highly desirable when the Government of the day were strong, enlightened and sound in its methods. But one shudders to think of the possibility of this Dominion being tied to the heels of a Government, weak in nunfbers and in administrative vision, lavish in its expenditure of public monies on non-reproductive works, j dependent upon the weakest and most j radical party in the House for its hold upon office—that is, were such a Government possible in this enlightened country! And what of the Civil Service? State Departments, already strongly entrenched behind a mass of strongly entrenched behind a mass of regulations which they have tied around would doubtless welcome a seven-year term for Parliament, for they would feel doubly secure in their powers. Even under the present arrangement they are secure, for it is a fact, and happily so, that State Departments in this country do not go in and out of office with governments. Nevertheless, there is a small measure of comfort to be gained by the taxpayer from the knowledge that once in every three years he can draw attention to departmental anomalies in some hope of being heard. He may, of course, be l fobbed off with a letter from some under-secrotary to the secretary of. the Minister-in-Charge, stating that the subject of his letter “will be kept steadily in view,’’ but he at least has the satisfaction of knowing that he has struck a blow for democracy which has raised an echo in high places—and he might not have been able to achieve that much had an -election not been looming on a three-years’ horizon. The suggestion which has just been given to the world by the chambers of commerce president is not new, either in spirit or in word. It is merely another indication of a, common, but unspoken, dissatisfaction with the limitations of the democratic system of government and another tacit admission that we cannot propound any better scheme of government. Every now and again some impatient taxpayer, conscious of flic shortcomings of the system, but equally conscious of his own insignificant position as a cog in the social system. rises in his place and savagely attacks Parliament, politicians and the humbug of affairs generally. But nothing ever happens for the simple reason that none'of us can think of a better system. A Mussolini? Yes, if we could get the right man—but after earnestly considering all the qualities of heart and mind he would demand in a dictator to whom he could trust his all, even his liberty, the taxpayer invariably comes to the conclusion that there is only one man who could possibly fin such a role —and that is himself, and unfortunately the country has so far

not called him to its service, nor does it show any sign of ever doing so. And so it comes to pass that all our disgust, impatience and ranting against Democracy invariably end in the some old way—we write scathing letters to the Press about it. we swear we shall give our votes to the other party next time, or, when despair is very deep and bitter, we vow to abjure politics for ever. Thus is “steam blown off’ - ’and the wofld made safe for democracy.