WHOSE BENEFIT?

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 11, 13 July 1922, Page 7

WHOSE BENEFIT?

ELECTORAL REFORM

There were references to proportional representation again in the House of' Representatives yesterday. ; Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) quoted from speeches made by Mr. Massey up to 1911, in which he strongly advocated proportional representation. An'argument advanced against the sys-: tern was that it would be impossible with it to"retain the ' country quota; but it.would be quite possible to arringe the electorates so that the raral votes should have the value of 1.28. < Mr.. Young: ~Do yon favour the country quota?" * t Mr. Statham: "I am in favour of its retention at present.. I know the arguments in favour of it, principally that otherwise rural electorates would be too large." . ' ,

Mr. L. M. Isitfc (Christcimreh North) said that those who ridiculed proportional representation did not seem to know that some of the best thinkers in Great Britain—men who had had great experience in politics—supported the system. It was high time, in any case, that the Prime Minister gave the House some idea of what he had in bis mind years ago, when he promised to substitute a better electoral system than the one then prevailing. Some argument against proportional representation was advanced by the Minister of Internal Affairs (the Hon.. W. Downie Stewart). They would have an opportunity of discussing the subject later, when one of the private member's Bills came np for second reading. All he wished to say now was that, in his view, ithe system was on its trial. It had many opponents in Great Britain and elsewhere, in all sections of the community, including Labour. He quoted Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.

Mr., M'Combs: " He is an exception." Mr. Stewart said that after seeing the system at work in New South Wales he did not Tcnow whether it was going to work out in actual.practice as well as its supporters argued. It. had been said that the Goverriment opposed the system because it would be disadvantageous to the Reform Party. He doubted whether that would be bo. If the Government wished to score, it could introduce the system for the cities on the ground that the opposition of country members to the loss of the country quota and the unde^irability of making very large electorates in the conntry made it-desirable to first introduce the system for the towns. The Government would benefit by such a measure.,

Mr, M'Combs: " But it" jrould not be proportional representation. It .would bo a piebald system." The Minister: " But it conld be argued that that was the most feasible scheme to adopt as an immediate step." Hie answer of Mr. Massey to the critics who charged him with failing to substitute something for the second ballot was perfectly plain. The delay had enabled New Zealand to profit by the experience of other countries with a system concerning which there were still considerable differences of opinion.

Mr. M'Combs: "Itis in operation all over Europe." The Minister said' that in many European countries there were sections divided by very strong religious and other differences, and it was -necessary to provide sonio such means as this for their representation, but in New Zealand there wore not the same divisions. In New Spnth Wales, ho had been told by members of both National arid Labour Parties, that (he system had not one rode&ming feature. Ono Labour member had told Him that, it made, tho party machine so powerful that no independent candidate could afford the expense of hiring halls and contesting an election.