REFORMERS’ REFORMSWHERE ARE THEY?

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3289, 8 March 1926, Page 10

REFORMERS’ REFORMSWHERE ARE THEY?

Nurtured in Opposition, Neglected in Power HUMILIATING AND LUDICROUS POSITION [Special to “Times.”] WELLINGTON, March 5. Philosophizing on the ways of Oppositions and Governments , tho. “Evening Post” recalls the writing of a memorable chapter in thc history of the Dominion which still is,pregnant with interest to the student of politics. After commenting upon the tendency of an Opposition +o restrain its ardour when it become"? a Government it looks about 'or an example and finds it ready to its hand. “A good illustration of this process, it says, "is supplied in our own politics by the fate of three of the four proposals by -which the Reform Party justified its name when in Opposition, and on which it was returned to power. Its scheme of land reform was fully realised. Its proposal to free the Public Service from political control was promptly realised in part, but on second thoughts that part was reduced instead of being extended. Of the most important of the Reform proposals which was to free thc Public Works administration from political control by drastic decentralisation based on a reform of local government in thc country districts, hardly a word has been heard during thc thirteen and va half years since the .party took office. Of thc fourth of these proposals much was heard during the first two or three years of the Reform regime, but little since, and at the last general election, so far as we are aware, not a word.” The “Post” recalls these facts in no captious mood, but rather with a desire to assist the Government in escaping from an anomalous and ridiculous position. Mahomet’s Coffin. For tho moment th e "Post” is not concerning itself over the Reformers’ failure to mak e good their Opposition promises to remove political control from thc public service and from public works. It is the spectacle of the Legislative .Council Act, suspended in mid-air like Mahomet’s c&ffin, that is offending its sense of propriety "To the casual reader of the Statute Book,” it says quite truly, "to nineout of ten unproffessional reads who have not the facts of politics to guide them, thc Legislative Council would appear to have been made elective by the Act which was passed for that purpose in 1914. But that Act, thou-rh still in existence, has never come into operation, and tho date of its operation, which was originally fixed for January 1. 1916, is contingent upon something other than the will of the Legislature. The original postponement was inevitable. In its origin, tho measure was highly contentious, representing nothing less than a statutory vote of no-confidence passed by one party on an important part of the administration of the other. It was accordingly a necessary term of the party truce which was dictated by tho war that the operation of the measure should be suspended.” The bare facts are stated here correctly, but 'Jw assumption that the operation tsf the Act was suspended in deference to the feelings of the Liberals is scarcely justified. At no stage of the debate was there a suggestion that the measure was intended as a reflection upon the administration of the previous Government. Party Representation. The Liberals as a party never raised any objection to the Legislative Council being made elective. They had,, indeed, a month or two before Sir Francis Bell introduced in the Council the measure now held in suspense promoted a Bill making both the

House of Representatives and the Legislative Council elective under the system of proportional representation. This Bill was defeated on a purely party division by only one vote and it is fair to assume that so formidable a demonstration of force hastened the production of Mr Massey’s Bill. The Liberals’ objection to this Bill was not that it amounted to a vote of noconfidence in their administration or that it purported to make the Council truly representative of the mass 6t the people; but to the fact that the Reform supporters already in the .Council, whatever the result of the intervening; elections, would continue to dominate the Chamber for six or seven years. In 1914 there wer e 19 nominated Reformers in the Council, and 12 nominated Liberals. In 1916 the numbers would have been 19 and 9 respectively, in 1917, 19 and 3. in 1918, 19 and 1, in 1919, 18 and 0, and in 1920, 14 and 0. This would have meant that between 1914 and 1920, a period of six years, no thinkable changes in public opinion would hav e enabled the Liberals to gret their policy measures throueh the revising Chamber. This was Sir Joseph Ward’!* reason for demanding the suspension of the measure during the pariv truce and Mr Massey's reason for readily granting 1 the demand. The Future. All this of course does not weaken the contention of the “Post” that the position, which is almost as ludicrous as it is humiliating, should be cleared up at the earliest possible moment. “The root of the matter," the “Post" says, in summing up the “Yes-No” policy of the Government, “probably is that Sir Francis Bell alone in the first Massey Ministry was really enthusiastic in favour of the reform, and that hist chief, his colleagues, and the party generally, were not sorry when the war enforced a postponement. After the retirement of Sir Francis, is there any Minister really eager to go ‘the whole hog’ and put the measure into operation unamended? The public will await a rep'y with some curiosity. The whole of the present Ministers. with, perhaps, the exception of the Hon. P. J. Rolloston. who has the useful habit of looking before he leaps, have given their support to the measure either in the House or on the hustings, and unless they are prepared to admit that it was so much camouflage designed to cover up the hollowness of their election professions they must give it their support now. Both the Liberals and the Labourites are pledged to the re-construction of .he| Legislative Council and to electoral! reform, and if the Government in its wisdom determines to abandon these panaceas for the ills it was deploring when it took office then the responsibility for its change of front must rest upon its own head.