The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1920. TRUE REPRESENTATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10717, 11 October 1920, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1920. TRUE REPRESENTATION

During the second reading debate in the House of Representatives last week on the Legislative Council Amendment Bill it was more than once suggested on the “Reform” side that the proportional representation principle had been utterly discredited by the results of the recent New South Wales election on that system. Reference was made to the fact that little more than 50 per cent, of the electors went to the poll and to the largo number of spoilt votes, and Air Massey stated that what had taken place in New South Wales appeared to have made some members think seriously about the hill, and quite a number of members said they intended to move ‘homo drastic amendments—cutting out, among others, the provisions for proportional representation—before the hill became law. As a matter of fact,' however, the results of the Now South Wales election, far from discrediting proportional representation, conclusively that the system will do all that its advocates claim for it. The New South Wales elections, indeed, are rightly regarded by “Representation,” the ably-edited journal of the British Proportional Representation Society, as “making another milestone in the onward march of this reform.” The small number of electors going to the poll and the large number of spoilt votes were not due to any fault in the proportional representation principle itself, but to the fact that the elections were held under conditions rendered needlessly difficult by an ill-inspired regulation promulgated by Air Holman’s .Government, under which the electors were required to mark every candidate in order of choice. Bui, in spit© of this hardship, proportional representation showed once more that it yields a Parliament truly representative of those who vote. These who dp not take the trouble to vote have, of course, no right to complain that they are not represented.

There were nine urban constituencies returning five members each, and fifteen country constituencies returning three members each. The number of members per constituency was thus comparatively small; hut; even so, the accuracy. of the results, in proportioning the; numbpr iof - members elected to the aggregate votes cast by the different parties, is very marked. For the three largo parties, the figures in the case of the' New South Wales Legislative Assembly ' were: —Official Labour—Number of votes registered, 241,438; number of seats secured, 42; number of votes per seat, 5748. Nationalist—Number of votes, 164,176; nqmber. pf.. seats' secured, 28; number of ’votes per seat; 5863. Progressive— Number of votes, 82,185; number of seats secured, 15; number of votes per seat, 5479. The members of all three parties, in short, represent an approximately equal ( number of votes. Compare with these figures those of the general election in Great Britain in December, 1018. The figures fCr the three largest parties were:—Coalition (Unionist, Liberal, and Labour) —Number of votes cast, 5,564,318; number of seats secured, 428; number of votes per seat, 13,000. Labour—Number of votes cast, 2,292,102; number of seats secured, 47 ; number of votes per seat, 48,763. Independent Liberal—Number of votes cast, 1,282,122; number of

seats secured, 25; number of votes per seat, 51,2841 The contrast between the equality and fairness of the New South Wales results and the gross inequality and unfairness of the British figures is sufficiently striking, one world think, to convert every man with a spark of fair play in his disposition to proportional representation. As for those w’ho are not fair-minded, the grave danger attaching to any attempt to perpetuate “representative institutions” that do not represent—that, indeed, tend to make of ■ “representation” a sheer mockery—is, 'surely, obvious enough to bring even them into lino, especially in these days when serious social, industrial, and political problems are so urgently demanding solution.

In our New Zealand general election of Defcember, 1919, the results were not quite so anomalous as those of the British general election of 1918; hut they were, in all conscience, quite bad enough. Tho following are the figures for the three big parties: Reform—Number of votes cast, 194,833; number of seats secured, 44; number of votes per cent, 4420. Liberal— Votes, 164,096; seats, 19; number of votes per seat, 8645. Official Labour— Votes, 135,970; seats, 8; number of votes per seat, 15,740. Taking all tho parties concerned in the election, the number of seate actually secured, and tho number that would have been obtained under proportional representation, wo have the following highly instructive contrast:— Seats Actually Under Secured. P.R. Reform 44 29 Liberal - 19 Official Labour 8 18 Independent Labour .... 3 3 Independent 22 That is to say, under 'an electoral system which returned members in duo

proportion to the voting strength of the different parties, Mr Massey’s following in the present Parliament would have been 15 less than it is; the Liberal party would have been stronger by five members; and the Labour party stronger by ten. Only the Independent Labour and the Independent voters are represented in Parliament in exact proportion to their - voting strength; and even this, surely, smallest of “small mercies” is, of course, duo to sheer accident. There is nothing sure or dependable about “first-past-the-post.’’ There is no telling what may happen nnder it. But the least likely thing to happen is the election of a Parliament that .at all fairly represents the electors. It might have happened that the Reform party, with a majority of 80 only throughout the country—though even that is a hig stretch of imagination, for Reform has never yet commanded anything like a majority in New Zealand—had won every one of tho seats, European and Maori alike. And that, perhaps, in the very best thing that could have happened. For in face of so ridiculous and impossible a situation, even the Reform party would have been compelled to carry into effect Mr Massey’s pledge of 1911 to introduce proportional representation. In 1911 Mr Massey recognised the justice and efficacy of that system. Now, forsooth, in view of the New South Wales results, ho holds that it is utterly discredited. One can only marvel at the lack of humour which allowed him to make that suggestion, and at the “power of face’’ which enables him to contend that proportional representation is a failure and “first-past-the-poafc” a success.