WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 15 August 1928, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

j PREFERENTIAL VOTING. I -- | REJECTED BY HOUSE. j (Special to “Guardian”.) | WELLINGTON", Aug. 13. ! The House of Representatives last I week gave but a short shift to Mr J. | McCombs’ Preferential Voting Bill, 3 which was designed, as its author exI plained, to ensure the representation I of majorities. The author of the Bill j expressly excluded parliamentary clee- '■ tions from its operation, he and his jj Labour colleagues, by whom it was promoted, looking forward to the time t when these contests would be detcr- ' mined by proportional representation, j but he indicated that it would apply to licensing polls and it was ii| here numbers of members of the House took alarm at the potentialities of the 1 measure. Had the Bill been placed on !! the Statute Book as it was brought down by the member for Lyttelto-n, the fifty or sixty thousand votes given to State Purchase and Control at the 2 triennial licensing poll would not have j! merely enlarged the opposition to No j License, as it does now, but they would have -been distributed, according to the alternative votes of their holders, “| between No License and Continuance. ||| By this means the will of the majority 3 would have, been definitely deterrnin■l ed. ! SIGNIFICANCE OF DIVISION. ; ij Probably not more than fifty per jj| cent, of the members of the House S knew exactly what proportional representation really implied, but every one of those who took part in the division knew on which side he was going to vote before the Bill was called on. The “Moderates’’ regard the three issue ballot paper as their sheet anchor in the determination of the licensing issue, and naturally they directed all their influence against Mr McCom's’s Bill. Their assumption that in ti:c event of the State Purchase and Control issue being deleted a majority of the electors who are now supporting that issue would espouse the cause of No License may he right or wrong, but it possesses them so completely that from their point of view it is an indisputable fact. It is fairly safe to assume, therefore, that all their artillery was directed against the proposals of the Labour Party and' that tile majority of eleven against the second reading represents in Rome measure the strength of the hostility that will be directed against the further licensing legislation expected this session. CHANGE OF MIND. The “Dominion” this morning, after admitting that “in a general way there is some justification for the contention raised against the Minister of Education in Parliament on Friday last that digging into old speeches in Hansard to expose thy past indiscretions of one’s political opponents is less important than tlie affairs of the present time,” proceeds forthwith to a much graver impropriety than did the Minister of Education. “The important point about the particular quotation made by Mr Wright from the past speeches of the leader of the Opposition,” it says, “is that Mr Holland does not atiknu.vlc'd/ge that lie lias changed his opinion. He simply remains silent—a significant silence, it might bo suggested.” If the lender of the Opposition thought it necessary to deal with all the allegations made against him and his party from the other side of the House, the business of Parliament would be sadly impeded without tlie least advantage to anyone. Mr Wright lias a political past of his own and even the Prime Minister himself has changed sides, hut Labour does not chide them for readjusting their views.

THE DIM PAST. Mr Wright, whu evidently is well disposed towards the protest that is being made against “Government in Business’’ drew generously from the propaganda of this movement for the points of his speech. “The views qf the leader of the. Opposition,” he said', “are out of date and they do not meet with the support of bin friends in Australia, who now bold that New Zealand methods of doing things are better than theirs Queensland frequently has been held lip as an example, hut the Prcmiier of that State has declared than its State enterprises have failed because the workers will not give honest social service. That surely is a sufficient reply to the contention that more State enterprises should he started in New Zealand.” Of course it is reply enough, ami to spare; but unfortunately Mr Wright and bis colleagues have not yet fully realised that New Zealand’ has .been hampered in this respect in much the same way as Queensland has been, and still are trifling with a problem which is calling aloud for the only possible solution.