Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 751, 23 July 1886, Page 22

Elsewhebe we publish very fully the provisions of the new Representation Bill which was introduced by the Premier on Friday, and set down for second reading last Monday night. The salient principle of the Bill is its practical recognition of the population basis of representation. Hitherto that has never been done. Distribution of representation have taken place, as in 1881, professedly on a population basis, but that basis was merely taken as a rough general standard subject to modification ad infinitum according to political exigencies. A very slight glance down the list of electorates and their respective populations, will show how very vaguely the principle was kept in view during the distribution. In fact the rule was adhered to or not, just as was most convenient in each particular case. Even the hard-and-fast rule of single electorates was very nearly waived in the case of Wanganui. It is to be regretted that it was ever applied to the case of Wellington. The new Bill, however, having established the principle that population shall be the sole basis of representation, follows it up logically in its application. The Bill is virtually grounded on the theory that, if we once lay down that the redistribution is to be made on the population basis, we have ended the matter so far as legislative functions are concerned. The rule once established, its application is simply a matter of arithmetical and geographical calculation. Discussion in a legislative body is not needed for the working out of such a problem. That is to be far better done by a calm dispassionate board of arithmeticians and geographers sitting apart from party influences and political turmoil, and bent only on effecting the most equitable arithmetical distribution and the most convenient geographical allocation. Forensic eloquence and debating astuteness would be utterly out ot place in determining how many beans make five. Once decide that there shall be five beans, and anybody can do the counting. If it. be argued that there are considerations apart from mere questions of numbers and boundaries that ought to govern the distribution of representation it may at once be replied that undoubtedly there are, but if you take those into account you at once strike at the population basis, and you admit a disturbing element which may vitiate the most beautifully perfect rearrangement of the New Zealand electorates. The House in 1881 professedly adopted the population basis, although it passed an Act which is by no means over-strict in its adherence to that standard. It may be assumed, however, for purposes of convenience, that Parliament has adopted the principle and‘means to carry it out in the pending redistribution which has been rendered necessary as a matter. ol justice by the migration of population. How then is this to be given effect to, fairly and honestly, if, after all, the vital details of a redistribution are left to be fought out on the floor of the House ? What is the use of Parliament saying that representation shall be on a population basis, if a schedule of electorates has to be submitted to the House in Committee, everv member having the right, if he can only secure support enough, to alter each item as he pleases ? What is there to prevent an active member, desirous, for reasons of his own, to have a district doubled or halved in size, entering on a course of lobbying such as that recently described in the House, and so getting his way at the expense of the principle ? There is no safeguard against this possibility while schedules of electorates are subject to discussion and revision.by the House. We may see one district, with two thousand inhabitants, granted

a representative, and the same deniedto another with a population of ten thousand. The only satisfactory and proper course is, having once determined the rule, to reduce it to a meremechanical, almost automatic process, as would be effected by this Bill. The objection'that this would deprive the House of its due control over representation, is fallacious as directed against the machinery, but is really aimed at the principle of establishing a basis. For if the House establishes a basis it must either conform to that —in which case it has no more power* to modify than it would have if the administration were vested in the proposed Board —or else if modification be sanctioned, the whole principle has been thrown overboard. Itis a case of rule or no rule, principle or no principle —a fixed basis, or a mere arbitrary division. If the House definitely accepts the population basis, then the distribution by an independent board follows as a logical necessity. In using the expression “ a population basis,” we employ the word “ population ” in its broadest senseIt is not necessarily what we may term the “ gross ” population —that is to say, including non-electors, male and female, and children, that need form the basis of representation. According to the Constitution the basis ought to be the “ net ” population available for political purposes —that is to say, the registered electors. It is an opinion strongly held by many that the distribution ought to be proportionate to the number of electors, and in this country, where every male resident is eligible for electoral registration, there is much to be said in support of such a method. It would remove many existing anomalies and irregularities, and tend to greater uniformity and fairness of representation. The question is certain to be broached in the coming debate, and ought to elicit an interesting discussion.

It is somewhat to be regretted that the Government have not boldly proposed a reduction in the number of members of the Lower House. We have in previous articles gone into this question, and urged, upon what appear to us strong grounds, the desireableness of this course. It was rumoured at one time that the Government would courageously lead the House on the question, and propose that the redistribution should be based on a quota of 7500, giving a House of 76 European members instead of 91. We are sorry that Ministers have elected instead to bring down their Bill with this most important point left blank—a direct invitation to the House to indulge in a free fight over it. With so large a majority as the present Government appears to command, it would have been safe as well as courageous to offer a specific proposal on so important a question, instead of inviting members generally to “ give a lead.” We hope that even yet the Premier will lead the House on that question, and will propose distinctly that the quota shall be at least 7500 —or its equivalent in electors—and that this will be adopted by the House. It is to be regretted that the needlessly large Legislative Council cannot also have its excessive bulk pruned down, but that is a subject demanding an article to itself. The House of Representatives on the other hand can be subjected to a “Banting ” process, and its unwieldy bulk reduced to more convenient and economical proportions, and unquestionably this ought to be done.