Objection To Increase In Areas Of S.I. Electorates

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28421, 30 October 1957, Page 16

Objection To Increase In Areas Of S.I. Electorates

(New Zealand Press Association)

DUNEDIN, October 29. The South Island had to ensure that it would not lose its numerical strength in Parliament, said Mr M. Wallace (Westland County Council) at the opening session today of the annual conference of the South Island Local Bodies’ Association. The conference passed a Wallace County Council remit that the association express to the Government its objection to any further increases in the areas of South Island Parliamentary electorates. There were a few dissenting voices. Mr Wallace said that although the South Island’s population was increasing it was not doing so at the same rate as the North Islands, and the North Island’s Parliamentary representation was also increasing.

In 1901. when it was decreed that Parliamentary representation for New Zealand should be 76 European and four Maori members. the country’s population was slightly more than 800.000. There was one Parliamentary representative for every 10.194 citizens, not electors, but “total” citizens.

In 1956. when New Zealand had a population of 2.200.000. there was one Maori representative to every 35.000 Maoris, and one European representative to every 27,105 Europeans. Forecast For 1982 In 1982. according to statisticians. New Zealand could have a population of 3.500,000. In that case there would be four Maori representatives each representing 50,000 persons and 76 European representatives each representing 43.000 persons. In 2000 New Zealand would have a population of 5.000 000. If the Maori population was 40,000 t ere would be one Maori representative for every 100.000 Maoris and one European representative for every 60,000 Europeans. Mr Wallace said that, if the normal trend of population continued. the North Island w’ould continue to gain at the expense of the South. In 25 years there would be the ludicrous situation of fewer members of Parliament in the South Island representing a much greater population than today.

Mr Wallace asked whether a young and growing country was going to continue to confine its Parliamentary representation to 80 members. Some said it was too many, but New Zealand was a democracy, and it was the best form of government so far devised. He asked whether Parliamentary representation could be stabilised, and suggested that there might be a revisionary period when representation could be reviewed and the whole ratio of population to representation adjusted.

If the South Island was not to have “home rule,” and if it was not to lose more members of Parliament to the North, the position must be stabilised on some basis and a revisionary period fixed. Fostering of Industry

Mr E. P. Meachem (Blenheim Borough Corneil) said he was not opposed to the remit, but it was difficult to see how the wish could be brought about. The association's time would perhaps be better spent in bringing pressure to bear for the fostering of industry in the South Island.

With the institution of a vehicular ferry between the two islands, thousands of persons would come to the South Island and bring their families. They would learn more of the South Island, and their families would learn that it was not the cold, inhospitable place many thought it was. In reply Mr Wallace said that

history showed that most persons would go towards the warmer part of any country. For that reason, in spite of all they did to foster industry in the South Island, a large part of the population would go to the North Island.

So long as Parliamentary representation was 76 Europeans and four Maoris, and so long as the North Island grew at a greater' rate than the South, then inevitably the South Island was going to lose numerical representation in Parliament. An alternative had to be found to safeguard the democratic principle of one man one vote, but at the same time it had to be ensured that the South Island would not lose its numerical strength in Parliament.