THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1931. THE LIFE OF PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 21049, 7 December 1931, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1931. THE LIFE OF PARLIAMENT.

The election being over, there comes from Wellington a suggestion that revives interest in a question now capable of being considered on its merits —that of the life of Parliament. It was canvassed to some extent last session, but as the proposal then was really for postponement of an imminent dissolution, the general aspect of it was submerged by the fact that an existing Parliament was not in any way justified in extending its own life in that fashion. It may be taken as a fixed principle that, a longer term being accepted as desirable, the Parliament authorising it shall not be affected, that the change shall not become effective until after the succeeding general election. itli (hat clearly understood, the merits and demerits of the three-year Parliament and of any possible alternative can bo considered without partisanship or prejudice. As mentioned in the Wellington message, though Australia and New Zealand have long had triennial Parliaments, this is by no means the rule for the Empire. Britain herself, Canada and South Africa all have the five years' term, and accept it with complete equanimity. Southern Rhodesia, the latest Empire territory to bo given at least an instalment of responsible Government, also elects its Legislative Assembly for five years. The Constitution of the Irish Free State prescribes the term of the Dail as "six years or such shorter period as may be fixed by legislation." It has since been shortened to five years. Thus, on balance, New Zealand, with a Parliamentary term of three years, belongs to an Empire minority, and docs not follow any established British constitutional practice. The present system was established in this country by the Triennial Parliaments Act of 1579. Originally the term for the central Legislature was five years, and it was not until the Provincial Councils had been abolished that the shortening of it was seriously attempted. Reference to the debates of the period shows that a considerable dash of acrimony flavoured them, at least in the House of Representatives : but the feeling was not aroused by the principle of the measure. There was a change of Government that year. The Grey Government fell, to be replaced by the Hall Administration. The outgoing Government had prepared and circulated a Triennial Parliaments Bill- The new one promptly introduced what was in practically all respects an identical measure. The point most argued was -whose bill it really was, each side claiming credit for it and accusing the other of concealed hostility toward it. Apart from those echoes of long dead controversies, it is notable that the change was advocated mainly on the ground that with the Provincial Councils .gone, and business wholly concentrated in Wellington, it was desirable that members should return to their constituencies at shorter intervals in order to keep the people in touch with national affairs. That argument may have been sound then, but it scarcely holds good to-dav, with communications so immeasurably superior to what they were. It was also contended that with people arriving in a steady stream from overseas, many were disfranchised for an undesirably long time if elections came only once every live years. Here again is an argument which time and altered conditions has made tenable only to a very limited extent. On the whole there was little serious resistance to the principle of a reduced term. Some members showed a desire to compromise by establishing four-year Parliaments. Had that been done there would be less reason to consider an extension now. One point urged against the change in 1879 has proved sound. It was suggested that with a life of only three years Parliament would not function as efficiently. New members would require the first ses- j sion to grow accustomed to the j methods and forms of the House, j and all would be restless and con- j corned about their constituencies in j the third session. That this j should not be so may readily be J argued ; that it is so will be granted ; by all who have had opportunities of watching a Parliament in action, j Again, it was contended in 1879 that j to have more frequent elections would increase the cost of Govern-1 nient. It cannot lie disputed, and j the point may well lie remembered J now, when the need for reducing that cost is so urgent. If to retifrn to a five years' term were considered going too far, there is much to be said for making it four years, turning to the compromise rejected 50 years ago. A saving of cost and the possibility of more efficient working of the Parliamentary machine are the prospects of gain from the change. It was also suggested in 1879 that a briefer tenure would tie members too closely to Jheir constituencies and destroy independence of thought and judgment, making them mere mouth-pieces of their electorates. Whether it has done so or not cannot easily be determined, but if four-year Parliaments would encourage candidates of higher calibre to offer themselves, that alone would make the change worth while. On all these counts, the proposal deserves impartial consideration. Any difficulties over the licensing poll could easily be removed by legislation, and if the result were the permanent separation of this issue from the Parliamentary elections, so much the better. Finally, if the suggestion to increase the life of Parliament from three to four years is dubbed reactionary, there is comfort in the thought that exactly the same charge was made against its reduction from I live to three in 1879.