The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 1923. STUMP LEGISLATION

Southland Times, Issue 18972, 20 June 1923, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 1923. STUMP LEGISLATION

Every session private members introduce bills for the purpose of providing themselves with a stump from which to speak at length to the House and to the public. The fate of the particular measure is of small consequence so long as the introducer and his colleagues have the chance to air their views. This is no new thing. Members of all shades of opinion have made use of these “stump” bills, and they will go on using them. But the measure presented by the Hon. J. A. Hanan under an extensive -title, The Election of Ministers and Party Reform Bill, is interesting because in addition to providing for the elective executive, it contains a clause which proposes to make it a “corrupt practice” for any Minister of the Crown between the issue of a writ of election and the election to offer or promise to procure public

money or loan, subsidy or grant for any public work, in order to induce any elector to vote for the return of a candidate. A clause along these lines is obviously designed to provide a platform for party politics, because it is patently unsound. Bribery by Cabinet Ministers is reprehensible at all times, and promises by candidates equally worthy of condemnation, but such a clause, if effective, would actually hamper the administration of public affairs. If Mr Hanan’s bill had been law an election in Dunedin might have had the effect of preventing the Government from making any effort to assist the victims of the flood. The clause may contain a proviso that the intent to induce an elector to vote in a certain direction must be shown, but such a provision is either too embracing or too effective in offering a loophole for the escape of an offender to allow anyone to take the measure seriously. Many years ago Richard Seddon was accused of bribery in Auckland when he promised an audience that a certain public work in Auckland would be carried out. His reply on that occasion was, “You may call it bribery, but you get it just the same,” and this so pleased the audience that no further interruptions occurred. The bribery charge is one of the stock accusations levelled by party fighters against Cabinet Ministers of the other side, and doubtless on Mr Hanan’s bill we will have to put up with a lot of rant on the subject, but a discussion of the measure would be sheer waste of time. Anyone of a cynical turn of mind may,_ of course, ask Mr Hanan if he is serious in removing from the electors one of the most effective weapons they have in inducing Ministers to listen to local claims. It may be unfortunate, morally it is wholly wrong, but the bald fact is that the elector rejoices in the' opportunity presented by election contests to make parliamentarians attentive to local matters.