The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1932. LIFE OF PARLIAMENT

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 116, 11 May 1932, Page 4

The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1932. LIFE OF PARLIAMENT

We have always held that a fouryearly term is best calculated to get the best results from our Parliamentary machine, but like the Hon. A. D. McLeod, ex-Minister of Lands, who voted against the Government on this issue, have always felt, for an obvious reason, that a change should only operate in the succeeding Parliament to that responsible for its passage. From a Reform newspaper (the “Dannevirke News”) source comes endorsement of this viewpoint: — “The action of the Coalition Government in making provision in the Annual Land and Income Tax Bill for the extension of the life of the present Parliament to four years is difficult to understand. The present emergency session has been convened for the special purpose of effecting economies in national administration in order that the credit of the Dominion may not be fractured by a yawning Budget deficit. The extension of the life of Parliament at the present anxious moment cannot affect the financial position for better or

worse, any more than a decision to enforce daylight saving all the year round from 1940 would affect the price of fish.” Going further afield, we find the “Wairarapa Daily Times” (Independent Reform) commenting as follows:—“The Government must by now have realised that the bulk of the people of New Zealand regard it as the most incompetent and extravagant that has ever occupied the Government benches. It fears criticism because of its shortcomings, and is trying to bluff its way through. The majority of its followers are so humble in their attitude that it is no wonder many of them are beingheld up to ridicule by the public. Wasting public money seems to be the favourite policy of the Government. The Government is so incompetent that even Mr. Forbes admits that it will take the Government four years to put its measures through. Of course, every one knows that the Government, after its extravagance, bungling and repudiation, is in deadly fear of the verdict of the people, and wishes to put off the day of reckoning as long as possible.” Then there is Coalition-United testimony from the “Christchurch Star”:—“ln the absence of a political crisis of the first magnitude, the people of New Zealand will not have an opportunity of expressing their political opinions at the ballot box until the end

1935. It may be that the Government hopes that the tranquillising effects of the peace and prosperity that are sure to have arrived before that date will have banished from the minds of the public the unconstitutional method by which the life of Parliament was extended, but it is significant that not one word in defence of the proposal has been raised by Press or public fmm on : end of the country to the other. We are glad to see, indeed, that one or two supporters of the Coalition refused to vote for the principle, and the

measure was carried not on a purelv party vote. Obviously Parliament had no mandate to bring about this extension, and we will be very surprised if resentment does not deepen rather than evaporate as the time for

reviewing the decision approaches.” The decision to extend the life of Parliament will undoubtedly prove a very welcome boon to those interested in the liquor trade, which will have enjoyed an extended period of assured security of freedom from polling possibilities totalling seven years. From an economic point of the saving is consi'derable from an extended term of Parliament’s life, about £25,000; but there was no mandate from the. electors for the members of this House to add a year to their period of engagement.