A QUESTIONABLE INNOVATION

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4297, 5 March 1901, Page 4

A QUESTIONABLE INNOVATION

The practice recently adopted by Ministers of consulting members of the Legislature on questions of public policy and expenditure by means of written or telegraphed communication, instead of calling them together in the proper and recognised way, embodies a departure that may be fraught with grave danger to the public interest. It is, of course, very [ convenient to get the views of honourable members about any question, and to have each pinned down to his view. Herein is for a Government the acme of safety. But it was a good old fashion which looked to Governments to have a sense of responsibility of their own. Bismarck, for example, undoubtedly did the right thing from the more robust point of view when he took the money for the war of 186 G which the Prussian Parliament had refused, and I then, after the victories which the money I enabled him to win, boldly asked Parliament to pass a Bill of Indemnity. Whether he did the constitutionally right thing is another question. It is a question for which every instance of this sort of robustness of action must find its own special answer from Parliament. If Parliament passes the Bill, whatever is in the Bill becomes constitutionally right.

In the case of the present consultation of the New Zealand House of Representatives, the constitutional aspect from one point of view is less serious than was the conduct of the great Prussian Chancellor. But in another way the constitutional aspect is more ao.

r [ho host, if not the redoo:..ir.g feature of I'ciflii'.nicntmy Government is its publicity. The, fact that Parliamentary discussion is conductm l in open daylight, so that the country is made familiar with the reasons that influence the decisions of its representatives, is an inestimable advantage. To get their decision nit bout those reasons, is to deprive the country of that advantage. It, moreover, reduces Parliament to a lower love!—to the level of silence, j Now, a .silent Parliament—silent because | given no opportunity to exercise the j function which gives it its distinctive j name—is unknown to our Constitution. ■ To reduce Parilament to that level is ono step downward. How many more would he rcqu'red to reach the gulf in which Parliaments never meot at all wo need not stop to calculate. Th» gulf ; is ahead, and that is enough to condemn I the first step downward in that direc- 1 tion. j

As regards the matter immediately in hand, there was nothing in. it calling for any ruffling of the surface either of Parliamentary or of Ministerial tranquillity. To decide the question of whether this colony is to send a thousand soldiers to the opening of the Federal Parliament or five hundred, or only fifty, is a .small thing. If the Victorian • Ministers' have been impertinent enough to mho a question which is no concern of thoins wind over, that it not a reason for the New Zealand Government to •shirk it, either hy calling Parliament towother or writing to members for their individual ideas on tlio subject. This country was well represented at the birth of the Australian Commonwealth, and need not be better represented at the opening of the Federal Parliament. The Heir-Apparent and his Duchess will bo there, It is true, but our troops will do them the honour of full numbers when they come boro. Moreover, it is not a question of numbers, but of the friendship of this colony to its powerful neighbour. There uro many ways of showing that friendship, which at the present stago it is impossible to question or doubt. Another consideration is that the despatch of contingents to war is likoly to divert expenditure from increased military representation at peaceful celebrations. In all this there is nothing too difficult for the exorcise of a little Ministerial responsibility. Ministers would have hurt neither themselves nor the country had they faced the position robustly. A Government surely stands self-confessed as weak and irresolute that cannot decide so trifling u matter without an unconstitutional consultation with Parliament. Mr Seddon and his colleagues have sent away several contingents to South Africa without Parliamentary sanction, in view of which fact their present action suggests the old saying in which a gnat end a camel are placed in juxtaposition. It is to be hoped that in their future actions they will show a greater regard for the traditions of Parliamentary Government and display a deeper sense of their responsibilities.