REFORM AND REPRESENTATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16493, 7 March 1914, Page 10

REFORM AND REPRESENTATION.

Me P. J. O’Regan reminds us this morning that five of tho members of the present Cabinet who havo lately publicly denounced proportional representation havo at one time or another in the past supported the reform by their votes in Parliament. No wonder Mr F. M. B. Fisher, another member of tho Cabinet, who less than two years ago was vice-president of a Proportional Representation Society, is now ridiculing consistency as tho resort of fools. Mr Massey has some excuse for his change of front in the fact that he obviously knew nothing about propprtional representation when lie was discussing the subject before the

general elections, but it is incredible that widely read gentlemen hko Mr James Allen, Mr W. Fraser, Mr W. Herries and Mr H. D. Bell will seek a similar refuge from Mr O’Regan's scathing criticism. In their ease if is not too much to assume, as our correspondent does, that it is in tho hope of retaining their seats on the Treasury benches they have jettisoned proportional representation. The plea they and Mr Massey and particularly Mr Fisher have put forward that the country “quota” stands in the way of the reform is utterly fallacious—a piece of sophistry that is intended to appeal to the country electors. The Bill prepared by Mr George Fowlds did not interfere with the “quota” in any way and Mr Massey and his colleagues must know this as well as everyone else does. Of course the preservation of the “ quota ” would necessitate smaller constituencies tnan those proposed by Mr 11. D. Bell for the Legislative Council, but this would be no serious disadvantage so far as tho House of Representatives was concerned. In Tasmania where the State is divided into five constituencies, each returning six members, there is sn agitation for smaller divisions, and to© supporters of proportional representation would not he disappointed i f it should succeed. It will require a much more courageous Government than the one at present in office to advocate tho abolition of the “quota,” which deprives the city electors of nearly onethird of the representation to which they are entitled, but we should dearly like to know how Mr Jtlerdman and Mr Fisher, for instance, would defend its retention in our electoral law. But that is another question. W© have given up hoping that proportional representation is one of the surprises the Liberal policy has in store for us, but we still believe it would he the strongest card any political leader could produce at the general' election and that it would be the deciding factor in what promises, thanks to the divided progressive vote, t, be a very close contest.