Patea & Waverley Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 1933 A NATIONAL DANGER.

Patea Mail, Volume LIII, 4 August 1933, Page 2

Patea & Waverley Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 1933 A NATIONAL DANGER.

THE story is told of the chairman of a well-known local body in Taranaki who was anxious to have a local Bill put'through the House of Representatives. On his arrival m Wellington he found to his dismay that it had been decided that, as the end of the session was’ drawing near, no further local. Bills would be considered. On’ interviewing the then Prime Minister and explaining how vital the Bill was for the district, hd expressed regret that he had arrived too late and that Parliament could not deal with" the Bill that session. In the midst of his sation he was interrupted by the Prime Minister, who, incidentally,, was the late Rt. Hon. W. F: Massey, with the remark, “Don’t you worry, Parliament can v do anything.” To prove the truth of his remarks, he later suspended the Standing Orders and had the Bill duly passed. The remark that “Parliament can do anything” is one that is* well .worthy of the consideration ‘of every elector. If Parliament can do anything, then it surely brings out in bold relief the fact that the utmost care. should be exercised in selecting? the representatives of the people, who, when elected, might go to great lengths and bring the country to the 'verge of ruin before their three years of office had expired, the electors in the meantime being powerless to prevent them. There is an excellent illustration afforded by the present Parliament of what can be done without the A sanction of the,.people and without the people being able to lift a finger to prevent it. We refer to the action of members in granting themselves a further year of office. In 1931 the people may be said to have entered into a contract with the 80 members of Parliament that they should manage the affairs of the country for a period of three years. Nothing Was said at the time about the period being for ‘ a longer term, The people in 1931 very naturally assumed that whatever happened,- in the absence of a defeat of the Government and its resignation,, they would at any rate have an opportunity of changing their representatives if they so , desired within three years at the longest. And yet, in -spite of the contract entered into, the members have debarred the electors from exercising their * right to change the Government for a period of four years, dating from the last .general election. In the meantime, blunder after blunder has been committed by those in authority, and more may be committed in the future. ‘ ‘ What is the remedy?” is the question that will very naturally be asked. The remedy so far as we. can see is in future to elect none but those pledged to support a measure giving the electors the right to recall any member, who, in the opinion of the majority of the electors of that member’s district, has acted in a way that is inimical to the interests of the country. Such a right in the hands of the electors, who are, after all, the masters and not the servants of the members, should serve to make the latter pause before casting a vote that would

jeopardise the interests of their country, or that would benefit themselves at the,,country’s expense. ■ Eor example,- with the precedent established by the present Parliament, there is nothing to prevent the next one if it is returned with- a sufficiently large majority, from voting themselves a further two years’ term of office and malting Parliaments quinquennial instead of triennial, without consulting the electors beforehand. It would appear to 1 be quite obvious that without some safeguard such as a right of recall there may be a grave danger of a Parliament in the future, realising that it can do anything, not only voting itself an extra term of office, but voting itself extra emoluments, whilst the people stand by, powerless to prevent it. The danger is real and not imaginary, as not only has the present Parliament voted itself a further year of office, but a previous . Parliament actually voted itself extra emoluments without the slightest compunction. The precedent is therefore there, and the danger a national one, in view of what has transpired during the life of the present Parliament. Electors would be wise to take steps when the next election comes round to ensure that in future members of Parliament are the servants and not the masters ,of the people.