Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, JULY 10, 1922. THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 445, 10 July 1922, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, JULY 10, 1922. THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

Hv all accounts tlio Leader of the Opposition made a very vigorous speech in attacking the Government on his no-confidencc motion in the House of Representatives last week, the main points of his attack being the failure of the Government to redeem its alleged promise that, on the repeal oi the Second Ballot, another method of election would bo substituted; that it bad failed to efficiently administer the finances of the country, thereby imposing on the people additional burdens, and had failed to curtail or control grave extravagances and wasteful expenditure in. the administration of public departments, and to run such departments on sound business lines; that it had further failed to prevent the- aggregation of land and also to deal satisfactorily witlr'the problem of unemployment. .Upon the other point, that the Government had’failed to lay on the table of the House the Economy Committee’s report, very little need be said. The report itself was of a confidential nature, submitted for the information of Cabinet, and primarily for that of the .Minister of Finance himself, in order that they might jointly work out a scheme of retrenchment. It is not usual for Governments to disclose confidential documents prepared under such circumstances, nor is it wise or expedient that they should do so. As a matter of fact, we understand the document itself was prepared hy the heads of certain departments, who possibly had to discuss the_ work and doings of their felloW-ofiicers in the State departments, and to -point out where reforms might be effected. The publication of their comments on such matters might easily give rise to friction between themselves and their 1 ellows, and, as their suggestions were prepared wholly and solely for the information of ‘ Ministers themselves, there is really no justification for the demand, that a report, prepared in such a way, should receive the publicity which the Opposition Leader contends is required.. Mr AYilford made much oi the failure of the Government to deal with the electoral problem, and candidly announced that he was a convert to the' system of proportional representation, which he considers should lie engrafted upon the electoral machinery of this country. He quoted the Minister of Internal Affairs and other Ministers, as having allegedly spoken in favour of a change iu the law, and, from the Budget of 1912, the reference to electoral reform, which stated that the system oi Second Ballots would ho repealed and another method of election substituted. Mr Wilford failed, however, to adduce any satisfactory reasons why such a system, as that of which he says he has become n_ convert, should he introduced into the political life of this country, and the consensus of evidence obtainable from countries where the system has been introduced is such that no man sensible of the obligations of British law, in giving effective representation to- the people would seriously sanction its adoption bore. WHAT MR MILFORD IGNORED. Much water has flowed under the bridge since 1912 when the Government intimated their intention of abolishing the Second Ballots, and several elections have taken place in the-Common-wealth States based on the proportional representation system, Tasmania and New South Wales having adopted it in connection with their Parliamentary elections. In both States there is growing dissatisfaction with the results, and wo are safe in saying that, in both States, a very large number of people, in fact the majority, are in favour of ilio repeal of the existing law, and the reversion to the system which still obtains in this country—that of election on what is called the ‘'first past the post” system. Whatever demerits the latter system may have the proportional system has equally grave defects, and, in its workings, is oi’ such an extraordinary character as to almost completely destroy the majority rule, which our Liberal friends have always maintained should obtain in this country. The system is open to the objection that it destroys local representation; abolishes the country quota (which is still regarded in this country as one of

the safeguards to tho preservation ol the interests of the country settler); plays into the hands of the political caucus : leads to unsatisfactory bargainings Avith minorities, under which the interests of the country would suffer and corrupt practices would be introduced; makes it practically impossible to preserve community of interests in the constituencies outside of tho cities; breeds,the greatest discontent amongst candidates; in that the supporters of a particular party standing in an electorate would have to practically fight iu opposition to their friends, if they desired to secure their seats: adds materially to the cost of a political contest, and so prevents candidates of moderate means coming forward for election; constitutes most unwieldy electorates which it is impossible for any candidate to travel over thoroughly; and finally, substitutes minority rule for that of tho majority. So far as the criticism of tho financial position is concerned, Mr Wilford obviously failed to recognise the facts, in alleging that tho credit of the Dominion was not as good as it was iu 1912; he made no allowance for the Avar and its aftermath, Avhich have had the elfect of sending up tho prices everyAvhoro and operated just as much to the disadvantage of the Mother Country as of this Dominion. He failed also, to mention that, in commenting upon the last five million loan, the London Times pointed out that our credit Avas every bit as good as that of the .Mother Country. In the period of reconstruction which lias followed the cessation of hostilities and the return of onr soldier citizens to Noav Zealand, it was inevitable that the expenditure would assume abnormal dimensions, and that it Avonkl be a difficult matter to cut down the overgroAvn establishment necessitated by the war. The Government lias, however, done what must bo regarded as heroic work in this direction; it lias incurred a great amount of unpopularity in the cdnstitueneies i through its retrenchment policy, and is, ive believe, doing its best for the country under the exceptional circumstances which prevail. In regard to his other points, and more particularly the aggregation of land, avo fail to see in his reported utterances any justification for the implied charges Mr Will'd id has made against the Government. He can scarcely hope to sec his no-confidence motion carried, but, this being election year, it was, we suppose, inevitable that an attack of the character which is now proceeding would bo made against tho Government.