WHY THE ACT REMAINS DORMANT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 156, 3 June 1929, Page 6

WHY THE ACT REMAINS DORMANT.

It seems desirable that these facts should be borne in mind, especially as an advocate of proportional representation has recently suggested, through the columns of a metropolitan paper, that the real responsibility for the Council remaining- as a nominated body rests with Mr Massey. As a matter of fact, wheu the National Ministry was formed in 1915, one of the agreed upon conditions was the appointment of new members to the Council, Sir Joseph Ward selecting a certain number of gentlemen for appointment to that Chamber and Mr Massey nominating an equal number. At Sir Joseph’s instigation the operation of the Legislative Council Act, which was then on the Statute Book, was amended in 1915 and again in 1916, the Act not coming into force until 1920. A further amendment of the Act, made in 1918, deferred its commencement to “a date to be appointed for the commencement thereof by proclamation,” with the proviso that “the date so appointed shall not be within the period of twelve calendar months ensuing immediately after the publication of such proclamation in the Gazette.” The Act still remains on the Statute Book but in a dormant condition. It may be brought into force if, and whenever the Government pleases. The question-has been asked why the Reform Government did not take steps to issue the proclamation bringing the Act into force, in 1920, as it might have done. The explanation, wc believe, is found in the fact that the stumblingblock to its enforcement rests in the system of election the Act proposes. When the 1914 Act was first passed. Ministers had no real conception of the intricacies and tricky nature of proportional representation. As they became familiar with its working Government supporters generally were averse to the introduction of the system, and it was thought advisable to let the matter rest for further consideration. It is, of course, open to the Government to call the Act into being at any time it may elect to do so, but the Prime Minister has no particular predilection for an elective Upper House and while, as the- author of the Second Ballot Act, under which two elections were held in New Zealand with anything but satisfactory

results, lie may be concerned in changing 1 the existing “first-past-the-post” system of election, and, in view of a statement that went the rounds some little time ago, it may suit him better to continue the nominative principle in connection with the membership of the Council than to venture upon a policy of more or less doubtful expediency.