A PARLIAMENTARIAN’S TEMPTATIONS

Northland Age, Volume 1, Issue 9, 4 December 1931, Page 10

A PARLIAMENTARIAN’S TEMPTATIONS

DURING the election contest, now happily over, Mr. Rushworth spoke very frankly of the very great pressure—political, social and financial —brought to bear on private members to influence their votes in parliament, and how difficult it was at times for even the most conscientious member to resist that pressure. Everyone knows in a general way that this is the case, that a new member’s character is very carefully studied, especially his weaknesses, so that the people who are interested in influencing his actions may know how best to apply the pressure. Sometimes that pressure is applied in very subtle ways. He may be flattered and have his ambition appealed to, or it may be the social ambition of his wife and family. He will find people eager to put him under a sense of obligation, apparently out of a spirit of pure friendliness till the time comes to appeal to the friendly spirit generated for a little friendly help in political matters. What can a man do? He cannot boorishly reject every friendly overture made to him, repulse the many charming who appreciate him so well, are so ready with a word of praise for his latest speech, so courteous to his wife, and so helpful in securing good positions for his children. So little is asked of him at first, and even if it means straining his principles a little he can hardly refuse. In time he finds himself involved in a web that he finds it practically impossible to break as long as he is in Parliament. Very little of this appears on the surface, but those familiar with the inner working of the parliamentary machine can tell queer tales, punctuated with cynical comment, as to how things are engineered there. That is only one side of the insiduous pressure brought to bear on members there are many others. The crudest and the most powerful is the financial one. Members of our Parliaments are sometimes poor men and of necessity very susceptible to financial pressure, especially at a difficult period like the present. When financial interests are involved in parliamentary action and that means many times during a session—many members are called upon to choose between their private interests and what they hold to be their public duty. There will be nothing so crude as threats—no obvious attempt to influence their action. A friendly hint dropped by a friend, a casual sentence in a letter, and the unfortunate man gets new light as to what his public duty really is. It is so easy to believe what it is to our interest to believe. The public should know these things ; know how in so many ways their interests have to take second place ; even to have a little charitable understanding of the actions of some members, and the temptations they are exposed to. Considering all things, it is surprising that the standard of parliamentary honour is as high as it is, that members do so often do their duty at the risk and often the certainty of private loss. But when a man is called upon—as members of our Parliament may possibly be called upon —to cnoose between financial ruin and his convictions —we can hardly blame them for putting the welfare of tneir families first.