The Dominion. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1945. JUST GERRYMANDERING

Dominion, Volume 39, Issue 28, 27 October 1945, Page 6

The Dominion. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1945. JUST GERRYMANDERING

One thing was made plain by the debate in Parliament during the introductory stages of the Electoral Amendment Bill. The Government claimed that the issue was a matter of democratic principle, but its spokesmen demonstrated clearly enough that, in reality it was simply a matter of party political expediency. The proponents of the measure have already made repeated use of certain stock phrases, and no doubt will continue to do so, but they must produce facts not theories when it comes to the question of changing an electoral system designed to meet the peculiar requirements of this country. The Prime Minister said that democracy “had no meaning” unless it meant one vote one value. In that case Great Britain is not a democracy. Last year, when electoral matters came before the House of Commons, the then Home Secretary, now the Labour leader of the House, Mr. Herbert Morrison, said that there would be no reduction in the representation of Scotland and Wales and the result would be that the average English constituency would have about 10,000 more electors than the average Scottish, seat and over 7000 more than the Welsh electorates. Is that one vote one value? The fact is that boundaries were fixed to meet local conditions with arithmetical popular statistics as a consideration, but not the sole consideration. Moreover, this professed regard for the principle of one vote one value which is made the pretext by the Government for gerrymandering the electoral laws in their own favour is conveniently overlooked in the matter of Maori representation. As was pointed out in the course of the debate on Thursday evening, one Member of the Maori race at the present time holds his seat in Parliament as representing an electorate, the total votes in which amounted to only 1120 as contrasted with the many thousands polled in all other electorates. This particular member polled only 741 votes, and he has been rewarded for this achievement with a Ministerial portfolio. It is sheer hypocrisy to talk of one vote one value when it is proposed to perpetuate a condition under which North Island representatives of the Native race have a vote not one fifth the value of the vote of those Natives who happen to reside in the South Island. It is specifically provided in the proposed amendment of the Electoral Laws that Maoris shall be excluded —that is to say that so far as they are concerned they will continue under the law as it now stands. Why this discrimination ? Why, if the Government is honest in its professions, does it not apply die principle of one vote one value to the Maori population instead of continuing to treat the vote of the South Island Maori as being from five to eight times as valuable as that of his fellow Native in the North. The truth is that there is no fair and honest intention behind the proposed changes in the law. There is the further reason that the Government fears to alter the existing Maori electoral boundaries; for without the support of the Maori Members of Parliament it would be seriously embarrassed. There were several other matters which, during the debate, Government members showed a marked disinclination to deal with in any detail. The first was the proposed change from the total population to the purely adult basis for determining electoral boundaries. No real effort was made to justify that proposal which is a deliberate attack on the value of the family in the life of the nation. A second proposed amendment over which Government spokesmen were not inclined to linger was with respect to the Constitution of the Single Electoral Boundary Commission it is intended to appoint. In the past there have been two Commissions, one for the North Island and one for the South. Now there is to be only one, and instead of impartial public officers being well represented on it there is to be only one State officer included. Four others—an overwhelming majorority—are to be Government nominees, chosen presumably, if .past experience is any guide, from the ranks of the Government’s own supporters. That is to say, if the Bill passes, the electoral boundaries will be adjusted, not by an ■impartial body, mainly composed of public officials, concerned only with safeguarding the interests of electors, but by persons specially chosen by the Government. This is but another example of the determination of the Government to leave no means untried to safeguard its own political future. Other changes proposed all go in the same direction. They are not matters of principle so much as the urgings of political expediency, for the test applied by the Government has not been the requirements of the country but the requirements of the party. That is just plain gerrymandering.