THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1913 LEGISLATIVE BUFFOONERY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 24 November 1913, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1913 LEGISLATIVE BUFFOONERY.

Never in the history of the present generation has the Parliament of New Zealand been SO humiliated and degraded as during the last few months. Never has the highest tribunal in the land been brought into such disrepute. Tho Opposition, with, a reckless disregard for the finances of the country, and careless for the maintenance of the dignity of the House, has planned a policy of obstruction that reduces the work of the Legislature to a travesty and a farce. The fundamental principle underlying self-government in the British possessions is that the majority shall rule on all questions. Sir Joseph Ward and his following, by utilising the forms of tho House to over-ride the will of the majority, are attacking the very foundations of the British Constitution, and are bringing disgrace upon our legislative institutions. It is the duty of the Government. as representing the majority in Parliament, to bring down such legislation as it may consider to be in tlfo best interests of the country. The Opposition, representing the minority for the time being, may protest aaid vote against any measure it considers inimical to the interests of the Dominion. It has no moral right to employ obstructive measures _ to prevent the will of the majority being given effect to. The "stonewalls", that have been set up oil the Land Bill, the Board of Agriculture Bill, and the Legislature Amendment Bill can serve no other purpose than to unduly prolong the session of Parliament . and waste the revenues of the country. The buffoctaery that has been practised by the Opposition over the Legislature Amendment Bill is simply shameful. "Whether the Government is right or wrong m intro-

(lucing a clause into that Bill to repeal the Second Ballot Act, without producing a substitute, does not enter into tho discussion. If a. mistake is made, tho Government, and tho majority at its back, will accept all responsibility. Sir Joseph Ward makes a grievous mistake if he imagines that, by tho gross abuse erf the forms of the House, ho can flout the British Constitution and defy the will of the majority. It may be readily imagined that tho Loader of the Opposition has had occasion to modify liis views on tho question of tho Second Ballot since tho la-st election. He now recognises that there are three parties in tho country, and that it ia impossible for him to manipulate tho Labour vote in a .straightout election. He desires to retain the second ballot so that by intrigue and log-rolling he may gain a partyadvantage at the next election. The principle of majority representation does not enter into the discussion. If it did, Sir Joseph Ward would surely not repudiate the promise made by himaelf and his followers prior to tho last election to wipe the Second Ballot off the Statute Book. _ No; the whole consideration with the Opposition is that of party. They are willing to sacrifice honour, principle, time, money, and the dignity of Parliament that they may. again seize the reins of office. Sir Joseph Ward knows very well that with three parties in the country it is impossible, under tho Second Ballot Act, to secure majority representation. Even proportional representation or preferential voting would fail, as it has failed in Tasmania, to provide an equitable division of Parliamentary representation. The nearest approach we have to electoral perfection is the system under which the candidate who secures the greatest number of votes' at the first ballot shall be the representative of the people. That system obtains in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the British Empire, and all attempts to improve upon it have more or less failed. The Second Ballot, a a we have known it in New Zealand, has proved cumbrous, expensive, • and we believe it to be tl4 wish of the country that it should 66 immediately repealed. It will be time enough to discuss the question of a substitute when something approaching a perfect system has been devised. In the moantime, as we have already stated, the principle involved in the present holdingxip of Parliament is not that of majority representation, but solely that of party. And, in his endeavour to gain a party advantage, Sir Joseph Ward is prostituting the forms of Parliament and putting them to the very lowest and basest use.* He is endeavouring to create a very serious effect upon the conduct of the public business of the Dominion. The "stonewall" k< a two-edged sword. Thoise who employ it to-day may have it employed against themselves in the future, and,an intolerable position in self-government may bo created. If Sir Joseph Ward were to come into power to-morrow—-which, Heaven forfetid! —would he countenance the adoption of obstructive measures such aa those he is now himself employing? If he would not, how can he defend the present outrageous conduct of his party ?