BUSINESS IN POLITICS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 57, 8 March 1930, Page 10

BUSINESS IN POLITICS

HOW TO GET THERE

A RADICAL REFORM

(By S.S.)

There is a rumour abroad to tho effect that business and professional men, wearying of tho inadequate representation they have obtained in Parliament over a long scries of years, are seeking a place in the political arena for themselves. It is a prospect the whole community should vv'eleoine. There has not been a prominent "captain of industry," a first-class lawyer, a trained and tried political economist, a proved engineer, a practical scientist, or even a fully-equipped.school teacher in the House of Representatives for many a long year. In the .present House there are among tho European members twenty-seven farmers, eight barristers and solicitors, five secretaries, five merchants, four journalists, four gentlemen who stylo themselves "Members of Parliament," including the Prime Minister himself, four agents, and two contractors. The rest of the members stand singly in their oecoupations, except the gentleman who dubs himself "motor-car proprietor," a title which probably would fit many of his fellow members. Agricuture is generously represented. Sixteen farmers lend an agrarian atmosphere to the Reform Party; eight are in the very forefront of the United Party; one is the boast of the Labour Party; one- the constructive genius of the' Independent Party, and one the solitary representative of the Country Party. Whether it is well or otherwise for tho country to have twenty-seven farmers in the elective branch of its Legislature is a moot question; but, for the most part, they arc hot garrulous talkers, and they rarely wander seriously beyond their depth even when the Budget is before t). i House. The Eeform Party is particularly free from lawyers and journalists, only two members of/the legal profession figuring in its ranks and journalism not' being represented at all. The United Party harbours three soleitors and two journalists, while the Labour Party has taken to its bosom two solicitors, four journalists, four secretaries, and two "memb.ers of Parliament," all typical of the life and energy and "divine discontent" the party exudes. THE PEOPLE'S VOICE. In tho present House of Representatives there are five members described as "merchants." Of these perhaps two nia,y be regarded as in the very forefront of commercial life as it is known in this country. In addition there are two contractors, on© manufacturer, and one accountant. It will be a generous concession to assume that among these six gentlemen there- are three rightly entitled to be regarded as figures of consequence in the wide fields of trade and commerce and industry. Of the six, four have reached Parliament by means of minority votes; that h they were not supported by a majority of their present constituents. Here, surely, is evidence, tho reiteration of many previous experiences, that tho present system of electing members to the House of Representatives is :i mere hazard' in which the dice as often as not are weighted against the very people who need the assistance of the ballot'box? A glance at the voting in the four metropolitan areas at,tho last General Election will reveal how this may be brought about. In tho ten constituencies in the Auckland area 25,----05S votes were cast for Reform candidates, 44,511 for United candidates, and 41,480 for Labour candidates. The result was that with 28,055 votes Reform secured one. seat; United with 44,511 votes five seats,.and Labour with 41,----480 votes four seats'. .In other words, it took -28,055 votes to win a seat for Reform, 10,370 to win a seat for Labcui- and only 8902 to win a seat for United. The same sort of'thing happened in Wellington, and iii all other metropolitan electorates where business men should be. welcomed to look after business affairs. In the Capital City, with six constituencies, 25,442 votes were cast for Reform, 13,378 votes for United, and 38,216 for Labour, with the result that.Eeform secured one seat United one seat, and Labour four seats. It took 25,442 votes to elect a Eeform candidate, and only 8554 to elect a Labom- candidate. MORE ANOMALIES. In tho Christehurch and Dunedin constituencies the flagrant incongruities of the present system' of election were even more strikingly demonstrated. The city of Christchureh, including the town of Lyttelton, for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, is divided into six constituencies, which at the election under review recorded 67,560 votes between them. Of these 16,805 were cast for Reform, 22,378 for United and 28,377'f0r Labour. The Eeform' votes secured two seats, an average that is, of 8402 votes-for each seat, and the Labour votes four seats,. an average of 7094 fer each seat, while the United votes of 22,378 were absolutely fruitless. In the Dunedin metro-, politan area there are only five electoral districts, Port Chalmers, situated as Lyttelton is in regard to Christchurch, being one of them. Here the incongruities, perhaps owing in a measure to the smaller polls, were not so flagrant as those in the larger metropolitan areas. The figures show, however, that while Labour with 18,250 votes won only one seat, Reform with 13,283 votes won two, and United with no more than 12,388 votes one. The position here was complicated to some extent by the presence of Sir Charles Statham, an Independent—the only real Independent in the election campaign —who drew support from both Reform and United in' a contest against a very active Labour candidate. It would be no less than sacrilege, if not high treason, to associate Sir Charles and his high office as Speaker of the House of Representatives with a sketch of. this description, and the summary of tho figures that have been quoted are sufficient to show that in the four metropolitan areas 83,58S votes were east for Eeform (yielding six seats), 92,654 for United (seven seats), and 122,323 for Labour (thirteen seats). These figures show conclusively that in j the metropolitan areas Labour's voting strength is very much greater than that of either of the other parties, and, further, that its better organisation j and untiring efforts; enable it to outstrip them both at the polls. j THE WAY OUT. lii view of these facts it would be idle for business men to attempt to make their, way into Parliament through city constituencies, except in very exceptional circumstances. Mr. John Duthie succeeded in doing so forty years ago, and remained'there, on and off, for a dozen years, because he possessed rare personal qualities which appealed to the workers as well as to the employers; but in these days it would be difficult to recall one of his like to mind. Mr. Massey, who, with' all his practical good sense and earnest endeavour, never quite succeeded in uu- ] derstauding' the simple principles of proportional representation, suggested in his later days that this system of election should be applied to city and suburban constituencies, and preferential voting in single electorates to I lie rural constituencies. Naturally tho I suggestion, which was actually embodied in a draft Bill but. never circulated,found no favour witli the Labour Party, which in the cities would have been confined by such legislation to .its dug share of- representation, and, iv

the rural constituencies would have had no chance of securing a seat unless tho farmers themselves, as in tho case of Mr. W. L. Martin, tho present Labour member for Raglan, joined hands with Labour themselves. Labour itself, there is reason to believe, is honestly well disposed towards universal proportional .representation, which would give every elector his fair share of representation; but the average politician of the day, owing either to personal prejudice or crass misconception, is opposed to the whole community being represented in Parliament, and prefers to take the changes of a clumsy, illogical system of voting that may lead the country anywhere. How business and professional men, who, it is said, are beginning to realise the disadvantages under which they are .labouring in this respect, are going to free themselves from their disabilities it is difficult to say, but denouncing Parliament is not going to help them greatly, and it is quite time they began to look for the root of their troubles.