A SMALLER PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 March 1932, Page 6

A SMALLER PARLIAMENT.

Mr. D. S. Reid’s suggestion that the personnel of the House of Representatives should be reduced by half and the Legislative Council should be limited to about 12 members is not new, but is not on that account less interesting. It is not a subject which Parliament will be tempted to consider during the emergency session, though it is, of course, on the score of economy that the member for Raglan urges the desirability of a change. But it is a subject which might well receive consideration both in and out of Parliament with a view to the submission of a definite issue to the electorates at the next opportunity. So far as the Legislative Council is concerned there is much to be said in favour of limitation of numbers. Its principal duty is the revision of legislation originating in the elective Chamber, and eiiis work could be done efficiently, quickly and cheaply by about one-third of the present personnel. A substantial reduction of the House of Representatives certainly would suggest economy of money in respect of salary and other charges and of time, which is to be measured also in money. Mr. Reid and Mr. H. M. Campbell, who supported the member for Raglan, have urged that the work of the House could be done better by half the present number of members, but they would probably agree that any considerable reduction would have to be accompanied by a very radical change in the nature of the duties expected of members. New Zealand has one representative for every 19,000 of population, and that is a “great enough number to keep a member’s hands very full under a system which encourages the people to rely on the State for help in all manner of ways and permits the State to interfere very freely in the business and even the private life of the' community. Circumstances are probably conspiring to alter this system, and when they have done their work the curtailment of Parliament’s personnel may come as a natural consequence. In that case the ultimate result probably would be greater efficiency in Parliament, for its members would be able to concentrate their efforts on their legislative duties. And the abolition of “bread and butter” politics might bring the Dominion mufch nearer the realisation of another ideal, the preferment of national interests above those of party. Under the conditions that prevail to-day it is possible to realise that this country’s need is not politics but the earnest effort of a compact team to administer the public business on economical lines, and this is the time for everyone to consider how that can best be done. It would be well for political and public organisations to formulate their opinions and so encourage Parliament to seek a direction as to future action. But those who favour a change will have to recognise that if representation is to be on a new basis they will have to ask far less of their representatives than they do to-day.