Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 2 November 1932, Page 4

Tit*? proposal of the Government to introduce legislation for the purpose, of extending the life of Parhameut from three teo four years, comments a Christchurch paper, is a constitutional breach of f dth. Tt was not submitted to the electors at the general election arid although the subject was certainly me: tioned during the session .prior to the election it was not rai-ed as an issue during the campaign. The only precedent wo haiv» for an exten-

sion of the life of a parliament occurred during the war and the conditions then warranted the departure from constitutional practice. But this Parliament has still two years of its normal life before at and the propriety of. an extension will not become an issue until the end of 1934. We may surmise—and it is only a surmise—that the proposal was put forward as one of the conditions of the formation of the Coalition, but if that was the case it should have been seated at the time, and should have been repeated in the policy speeches of the leaders, Elections we know, are not normally fought on single i'su'es in New Zealand, .but the constitutional procedure' is perfectly clear. Candidates jijie expected to state, their views on all..important policy issues and 'are ouesfiored by the electors .upon . them. This the only check the public cto exercise. But ro such opportunity, was afforded either, candidates cr elect; tors, .and we are convinced that if the issue had been raised net 10 per cent, of the candidates would * have braved the displeasure of the electors and pronounced in favour of a longer term. In these oircumstoncse we are entitled to say that PaiTament has no mandate to extend its life and that the Government’s proposal js iuiconstitutio”id; Unfortunately there is no authority to which tlv’s question oan be refer 1 red, but it is all the more recessary, in the absence of an. authority. that the Government should adhere strictly to the accepted rule.