FOUR-YEAR PARLIAMENTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21861, 25 July 1934, Page 10

FOUR-YEAR PARLIAMENTS

In opposing the motion for the introduction of the Electoral Amendment Bill, which proposes to make the four-yearly Parliamentary term permanent, members of the Opposition argued that the democratic principle will be menaced, that it is amove toward dictatorship and that the right of the people to govern themselves will be weakened. Such extravagances will carry no weight in the country. While the Government had no justification for extending the life of the present Parliament, it cannot be attacked on the same ground for legislating in that direction for the future. It has long been realised that a three-year term is too short and that its extension would make for more efficient government. In the first session tln» House, with its group of inexperienced members, is finding its feet and in the last, under the frailties of human nature, it is usually engaged for the most part in preparing for the next election. Only the middle session is the real working session, when the average member applies his mind to his task without the distracting influences that proceed from the past election or are created by the approaching one. Democracy ought to function better than this. The electors are entitled to better representation whatever be the calibre of Parliament. The term in Britain is five years. It is the same in Canada and South Africa. By comparison with these countries Australia and New Zealand are in an almost constant state of political turmoil. Representatives develop the electioneering habit, and there is far too little dispassionate consideration of measures and administrative matters. This is being recognised in Victoria, where there is a strong plea for making the term five years. A four-year term would not cure the evil, but it would modify it. The country could hope that there would be less violent party conflict, and more mature reflection by members upon the problems of the Dominion and its destiny. Personal ambition might be less in evidence and the standard of statesmanship might be raised. The members of the Opposi tion who express such concern over the rights of democracy might well pause to consider whether its most dangerous menace does not lie in the manner national interests are so often subordinated to those of party. When the life of Parliament is limited to three years this selfish spirit is cultivated*