PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT IN NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10596, 14 September 1896, Page 4

PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT IN NEW ZEALAND.

The Hon. John MacGregor read a paper recently before tho Southern Cross Society in Wellington on " Parliamentary Government in New Zealand." He commenced by showing that party government in this colony is not representative government in any sense, and that party government is not essential to parliamentary government. Procesding to show the distinction between government and party he said no one thinks of disputing that parties must arise in politics, as in other spheres of human,activity. But the assumption on which party government is founded, that men are by nature divided into two parties, is as absurd as it is untrue to human nature. The greatest defender or apologist of the party system was the illustrious Edmund Burke, who said: "Party is a body united for promoting by their joint endeavours tbe national intere«t upon some particular principle on which they are all agreed." Could it be contended that these wards apply to party government as it exists in New Zeaiand ? "Would it not sound like irony t One of the distinctive marks of a faction, as distinguished from a party, is th&t instead of seeking to serve the State it seeks to make the State serve it. Who could deny that this is a characteristic of our so-called parties in New Zealand ? Another of the distinctive marks oE faction is that it exects absolute obedience, ana attempts to rule with a rod of iron. Could any one who had observed the proceedings of the present House of Representatives deny that this is true of the party now dominant ■ there ? Had not making anything a " party question come to mean that the member who dares to allow any consideration of what is right or whit is wrong, of what he believes or does not believe, to interfere with allegiance to his party, ceases to be a "Liberal," and is to be ignominionsiy expelled ? Whoever before heard of so ig'ioble, paltry, and contemptible a ques- j tion as that-of the appointment of the Sergeant-at-»rms being made a party question ? The truth , wan there-were no p«tieß in New Zealand in tbe sense in which Burke ujed tbe term. Dealing with party government in New Zealand, the hon. gentleman said: "What do we see when some great social subject comes up in Parliament ? The leader of tbe dominant parly declares the questiou not to be a parly question, and intimates to hi? obedient followers that they are at liberty to vute each, man according to his conscience, without regard to party considerations. Could anything ba imagined "more humiliating to the followers, or more degrading to our public life ? The appointment of a sergeant-at-arms is declared to be a party question, while prohibition, which is a social question of the highest importance to the community, is declared not to be a party question. Under party government as it exists in New Zealand the leader of the dominant party is for the tima being a despot. Ut him but ihreaten to resign, and the members of his party disregard everything elss but the commands of their master. A chamber which simply obeys, and does not discuss, is a servile body ; it serves no other purpose but that of a mask for despotism." SUBSERVIENCY OF PARLIAMENT. On this point the hon. gentleman s»id : — " Nothing has tended more to cause a feeling of disgust with party government in the minds of the people of New Zealand, than the subservisucy of those whom they elected to represent them to the will of one man. This stata of things has existed in former Parliaments, but never to such an extent aa in the present House. That this should be true of the first Parliament elected on complete universal suffrage is a fact that challenges attention; it gives confirmation to the well-established law that the purest democracy is the most ant to piss into despotism. But it also tends to show that pj.rty government is incompatible with true democracy. But, indeed, our democracy is no true democracy, but a spurious imitation. Tree democracy means the rule of the nation for national ends as opposed to the rule of the masses or of the classes or of a parly or a single despot for sectional Eelfisb. objects. This spurious democracy is as oslf-seekiog in its interests, as . \inbridied in its rapacity, as narrow in its aims, as degrading in its influence, as the worst and most exclusive caste' or despotism. A party such as I have described ceases- to represent true democracy aud becomes a menace to the best and highest interests of the community. True democracy means the supremacy of the nation, and of this no one need have any fear; but we have every reason to fear the rule of mere partisans and wire-pullers. A party which, instead of setting before it national interests and noble aims, regards only the interests of the pa'ty, or of only one section ef the people, to the exclusion of others, or seeks to use the power of the State to plunder one class for the supposed benefit of another class, instead of protecting all classes, does not represent true democracy." The hon. gentleman went on to show that party government meant personal government by one man, and to thi* complexion had ricmocracy come in New Zealand. " Loyalty to the nation" was the first principle of true democracy, because the sovereignty of the people was its fundamental dogma; " loyalty to patty." is incompatible with loyalty to the nation, and, therefore, with true democracy. The party man owes allegiance to his party first, and "party loyalty" is the sum of all his virtues—a virtue invented to serve the ends of party. - PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE. The Cabinet system being the root of the evil, an Executive elected by the members of the Legislature must take its place. An adverse vote would not result in a Ministerial crisis as at present, and we should no longer be compelled to witness the humiliating spectacle of representatives of the people voting black white, in obedience to the commands of a party leader, or forced to support him against their convictions by a threat of resignation or dissolution, and consequeut rißk of losing their seats and pay. We should then have a stable Executive free to devote itself to the faithful discharge of the duties of administration without fear about its own existence. We should then see the Legislature exercising its proper function of expressing its own will by legislation, instead of merely giving effect to the willies of the Cabinet. Instead of a msn b^iug pitchforked inta an office for which he had no qualification or aptitude, not for any Htaess, but as a reward for party services, we should see the members of tha Executive chosen each for the position for which he was best fitted by nature or training. Of bribery to hold together a following there would ba no need, and we would get rid of the most detestable practice " to the conquerors the spoils." The hon. gentleman submitted that " measures, not men," was a pernicious and dangerous doctrine, and that the exact reverse— "men, not measures"—was a much safer guide. To send men to Parliament simply because they pledge themselves regardless of their general fitness in point of character, ability, nnd experience, was little short of a social crime. TRUST THE PEOPLE. In concluding, the hon. gentleman said : " It is well to trust the people since ws have accepted democratic government in its entirety. But who are the people ? Is there not a danger of our mistaking the public for the people, tha wave for the ocean ? It is only your sham democracy that is afraid to trust the people; buS is there not an element of danger in our party leaders vying with each other in their solicitude to show their trnst in the people ? The first duty of a leader is surely to lead the people ; but our politicians are too like the French statesman, who, wheu he waa taunted with taking up a cry contrary to his principle^ replied 'I aru their leader and must follow.' Alas for the democracy that has such men for its leaders ! The democracy will nevsnlack men who are prepared to express their readiness to trust the people; but what it lacks and needs most is Justum ac tenacem propositi virum, [An upright man tenacious of principle.] one who knows not only how to trust the people, but also to withstand the Civium ardor prata jubentiuvi. [Insolence of the rabble.]"