The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 28, 1932. PARTY AND MEMBER

Southland Times, Issue 21823, 28 September 1932, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 28, 1932. PARTY AND MEMBER

Party leaders expect Unswerving allegiance from their colleagues in the House,, and when Mr Forbes chided Mr Sainuel with having broken faith with bis constituency by voting against the Government when its fate was in the balance he did no more than cite the well-worn party doctrine. Representation in the House in countries where parties are elected instead of persons is based on party loyalty, but in New Zealand every constituency is an individual area, and the personal Views of a candidate exert as much influence on the local result as the main party issues, so that the forte of party allegiance is riot so clearly defined. Mr Forbes’s dictum, if wholly accepted, would merin that each fnerriber committing himself to the support of the Coalitiori would be compelled to subordinate his individual pledges, his individual views to those of the Government, because if "party” is the overwhelming influence in an election, it is expressed in the personalities of the leaders who constitute the Ministry, and a revolt by the bulk of the party members would, iri Such circumstances, be a breakaway from the pledges given to the separate constituencies. Private members, it may be argued, can influence the Government’s action by speaking in caucus, but it cannot be contended that it is desirable to drive all individualism irito a secret meeting. The idea that a member of Parliament can furiously attack a measure proposed by the Government arid then vote foi* it because the Government must be kept in office is not new, but it is not sound. It has done much to lower the reputations of politicians and to obstruct the work of governing in obedience to the will of Parliament. The power of a Government to resign if a vote goes against it can be used as a whip to bring individual members to heel and to prevent the real sense of the House on a particular proposal being revealed. One way out of this undue emphasis of Cabinet’s power is to make the Government’s fate depend not on any chance division, but on a Straight-out isSUe of confidence or no-confidence. On all other divisions the Government of the day should be compelled to win the majority in the House by argument and not by the use of the party bludgeon. A Parliament of independents is not desirable because the lack of cohesion obstructs good government, but the extreme of party discipline, reducing members to automata, enlivened by occasional displays of hypocrisy, is against sound representation, which should be the basis of sound government in democracies. The Suggestiori that Mr Samuel should resign and contest his seat again because he has fallen out with the Government over the miners’ widows’ pensions does not provide a solution. If Mr Samuel were re-elected would the Government restore these pensions? Would it not rightly say that the people of Thames could not decide this matter alone? But if Mr SamUel elects to vote the Government out of office if he can, then he should face his constituents, and secure authority for his change of heart. So far, of course, be has hot disclosed that he does intend to throw the Government out of office if he can. His absence frotn the caucus does not prove that, but while he iriay show his distaste for the party, he must remember that his first allegiance is to the constituents who sent him to Parliament. It is to them he must answer, riot to a party leader. Perhaps, the party leaders should remember that, too.