The Southland Times THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1944. The Country Quota

Southland Times, Issue 25504, 26 October 1944, Page 4

The Southland Times THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1944. The Country Quota

DURING his address at Kennington on Monday evening Mr F. W. Doidge gave some attention to the country quota. He expressed his belief that the subject had been discussed last week in caucus by Labour members of Parliament. This was denied on the following day by Mr P. G. Connolly, who stated that “it had never been discussed at any caucus of the Labour Party.” The' denial must be accepted as far as the recent caucus is concerned; but there is clear proof that the subject was raised on an eai’lier occasion. Mr H. E. Combs, addressing a meeting at Masterton on July 8, said that the Labour Party intended “to abolish the country quota and to fight the National Party by dissolving the War Cabinet and taking over complete control of the war effort. ’ Itinerant politicians sometimes commit indiscretions, and the Hon. D. G. Sullivan (who was then acting Prime Minister) lost no time in making a denial. The two subjects, he said the next day, had never been discussed either in the Government Cabinet or the War Cabinet. But he admitted that they had been mentioned in caucus by a “very limited number of speakers during a general discussion.” It can be said, therefore, on the authority of a Cabinet Minister, that the country quota has been discussed in caucus within the past six months. This need not mean that the party has decided to abolish the quota. Many subjects are mentioned in caucus which are left outside the party’s immediate policy. There are left-wing members who would bring down drastic legislation if they could win support from the majority of their colleagues. Some of them are as unrealistic as the party delegates who go hopefully to the annual conference with remits of revolutionary import, all of which are politely excluded from the field of practical politics. But it is a fact that there are Labour members of Parliament who want the country quota to be abolished. No one outside party circles knows with any certainty how strongly the move is supported. The Standard, which faithfully reflects the mind of Labour, declared editorially on May 11 that the quota is “an electoral injustice that should not be allowed to continue.” It accused Mr S. G. Holland of making the issue “a challenge which it is to be hoped the Government will accept by introducing legislation which will ensure that this negation of democracy is got rid of before thenext general election.” Once again, it must be emphasized that The Standard speaks for a group much wider than that which decides how far policy can be carried into legislation. A Political Issue?

It can be claimed, however, that the future of the country quota is a subject which has been receiving attention in Labour circles. We are willing to predict that it will receive still further attention at the annual conference about to be opened in Wellington. There is no reason, of course, why the question should not be discussed. The issue is not untouchable. It is conceivable that electoral revision will have to be undertaken at some time in the future. Under the present system a rural electorate can send a member to Parliament with a smaller number of votes (in the proportion of 100 to 128) than is required in a city district. If the city populations continue to increase, at the expense of the country areas, it may become necessary to decide whether or not there is a strictly democratic basis for representation. The country quota does not give a rural elector more than one vote. Its sole result is to permit the smaller rural populations to be represented adequately in Parliament. The system was introduced at a time when country districts were more isolated than they are today. It is doubtful if farmers would object to its modification if they could feel sure that their interests were being served adequately in Wellington. And that is the crux of the matter. The country quota is at least a guarantee that rural voting power will remain undisturbed at the next general election. Any attempt to interfere with it at the present time would confirm the belief, widely held in country districts, that the Government is unsympathetic in its attitude towards the farmers. It is difficult for farmers to separate the issue from their general conception of Labour policy. This is especially true while the evidence becomes clearer that the Government is on the defensive. There are times when electoral revision becomes a social necessity. If, however, it is undertaken in circumstances which point to a political motive, it is inevitably regarded with suspicion. The farmers do not feel that the Government is reflecting in its policy the fundamental importance of primary production. They see in national affairs a stronger emphasis on city interests. The country quota is an electoral safeguard for the balance which must exist, in a farming country, between the rural and urban sections of the nation s economy. If it could be proved that this safeguard is no longer necessary, that city and country are being drawn into a unified and balanced system, the abolition of the quota need cause no public anxiety. But that proof does not exist; on the contrary, there are too many signs of a gap which grows wider instead of narrower. Not surprisingly, therefore, the country quota is a question to be treated delicately by Labour* spokesmen in a rural electorate.