WOMEN IN POLITICS

Taranaki Daily News, 12 October 1929, Page 19 (Supplement)

WOMEN IN POLITICS

WHY NOT IN PARLIAMENT? ———— / ; A SEX DELUSION. HISTORY OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS ACT. (By S. Saunders.—Special to News.) Though there are many women “in politics” in New Zealand —women, that is, taking a keen interest in the public affairs of the Dominion —not one of their sex has yet made her way into the Parliament of the country, and scarcely a dozen have even attempted to do so. The door towards this goal was thrown open to women by the Women's Parliamentary Rights Act of' 1919, a measure which the late Mr. Massey, its author as it originally appeared, described as “one of the shortest, if not one of the most important placed upon the Statute. Book.” But Mr. Massey was not destined to have his whole way with the measure. As he presented it to the House of Representatives it provided not only that women should be eligible for election to that branch of the Legislature, but also that they should be eligible for election or nomination to the Legislative Council. The one operative clause of the. Bill provided that “a woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from being appointed or elected as a member of the Legislative Council or the House .of Representatives or *from sitting or voting as a member of either House of Parliament through anything to the contrary iff the Legislative Act 1908 or in any’other Act notwithstanding.”

In moving in the House the second reading of the Bill, as it was then, Mr. Massey recalled the fact that he had promised a measure of the kind during the previous session of Parliament with the confident belief that it would be to the advantage of the whole community. Sir Joseph Ward, then leader of the Liberal Opposition, followed the Prime Minister with a warm endorsement of the provisions of the Bill, and Mr. H. E. Holland emphasized what the other party leaders had said. Sir James Parr, then untitled and outside the Cabinet, predicted that there would be six or seven women in the next Parliament, and that their presence even in so small a number, woqld go a long way towards freeing the Legislature from “the insincerity and inefficiency that exist in parliamentary affairs.” Sir John Findlay gave if as his opinion that the “advent of women to Parliament would be a lasting, great and potent influence for good.” And so on and so on to the length of many columns of Hansard. The final “political emancipation of women appeared to be at hand. SIXTY YEARS AGO. Mr. Massey was so elated by the reception given his Bill that he suggested to the House that it should be passed through all its stages in a single sitting. The suggestion was eagerly endorsed, and the process completed in five minutes. When the Bill reached the Legislative Council five days later, however, it encountered quite a different atmosphere from the one that had prevailed in the other chamber. No sooner had the first reading been called than the Hon. J. MacGregor, one of the very capable members of the legal prof cssion who serve their country in the Council, raised a question of privilege. “This Bill,” he submitted, “clearly raises the question of one of the most important privileges of this Council, namely, the privilege involved in the principle or convention that when it is proposed to make any change, in the constitution of either House of Parliament the measure intended to effect that change must originate in the House who.=e constitution is proposed to be affected.” In support of his contention Mr. MacGregor, with the facility of a master of his profession, quoted section 242 of the Legislature Act, 1908, consisting of some two hundred words withou: a period, in which, as far as the average layman can see, the “privileges, immunities and powers” of the Council and House rest upon the same basis as do the “privileges, immunities and powers as on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland and by the committees and members thereof.” The Bill, having been read a first time after this lucid exposition of its status, its second reading was postponed until two days later, my good friend the Speaker taking advantage of the delay to satisfy himself that Mr. MacGregor’s contention was sound in precedent and practice. In committee the words entitling women to sit and vote in the Legislative Council were expunged, and with this mutilation the Bill was returned to the House.’ Mr. Massey, of course, made the usual protest, aiid appointed, the usual committee ’ to meet the usual committee from the other chamber. The representatives of the council would have nothing to'do with any/sort of. compromise, an*d really there was no half-way house between “yes” and “no.” Sir brands Bell—surely the most sturdy democrat of all the surviving Tories —did his best for the final emancipation of women, but .the weight of numbers was against him. AS IT IS AT HOME. To realise the growth of popular representation in the British Parliament since the first Reform Act it is necessary to go back just upon a hundred years. In 1852, 000.000 new voters, styled “as of the middle-class,” were added to the rolls, bringing the total on the Register, approximately, up to 1,000,000, or one in every twenty-four of the population. In 1807 1,000,000 new voters, “workingclass in the towns,” were added to the Register, raising the total to 2,500,000, or one in every twelve of the population. In -1884* 2,000,000 new voters, “agricultural labourers and so forth,” were enrolled, increasing the total to 5,000,000, or one in seven of the population. In 1918, the year before New Zealand extended to women the right to sit in Parliament, 13,000,000 new voters, “women of thirty years and over, soldiers between nineteen and twentyone years of age and others,” were added to the rolls and the Register totalled 21,000,000. nearly one in two of the population. In 1928 5,000,000 new voters “women at twenty-one years of age on equal terms with men,” were enrolled, enlarging the Register to 28,500,000, substantially more than one in two of the population. And how did the women candidates fare in a contest in which their sex in number largely predominated? Poorly enough. The Unionist Party put ten women candidates in the field and three of them were re-

turned, all' ' titled / ladies,”? Viscduntcss Astor, Dutchess of Athol! and Countess of Iveagh. Of the twenty-five Liberal lady candidates who “entered the list Miss Megan Lloyd George, described a« a “chip of the old block,” secured a seat, retaining Anglesey for her. party on a minority vote. The Labour Party fared better with its lady, candidates than did its rivals with their nine of the thirty that dared the test being returned, including Lady Cynthia Mosley, a daughter of Lord Curson, and the wife of Sir Oswald Mosley, the Labour member for Smethwick and chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the new Government. The other prominent figures among the lady Labour members, at this distance from the' hub of the universe, . are Miss Margaret Bondfield, who was Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour in Mr. MacDonald's first Government, and now is Minister of Labour with the distinction of being the first women member of a British Cabinet, and Miss Jennie Lee, a pushing youno- lady who is by no means prone towards hiding her light under a bushel. AND HERE. The fact- that only fourteen women were returned to the British House of Commons , of 615 membprs. at. the recent general election is even -more amazing than is the fact that no woman at all was returned to the House of Representatives at the November election here. In England there are many women of means and leisure and culture within easy reach of Westminster ■ who cffuld be * rendering in Parliament invaluable service to the nation. New Zealand has not the same equipment nor the same facilities. This is not to say that women here are less patriotic than are those nearer the centre of the Empire. It is rather to say that women .here are not so deeply interested in politics as are . their, sisters , in the Old Country. They may be active enough when an election is in progress, but when it' is over they are apt to forget its aim and its purpose. Thirty odd years ago when women Were first enfranchised in this country it was expected—either with alarm or with satisfaction —that women’s votes were going to abolish the liquor trade. They have done nothing of the kind. If anyone has patience enough to examine the facts for himself he will find that in three-fourths of the constituencies in which . women’s votes predominate the hotel-keepers are in a stronger position to-day than they were three or four decades ago. Either the women have not given much thought to the subject or their sympathies at the poll are with the trade. Again, since 1919 several capable, earnest women have offered their services to one constituency or another. Miss Melville, Mrs. Baume and Mrs. McCombs come readily to mind in this respect. Any one of these ladies, irrespective of her particular party brand, would have represented any city constituency with credit, and been an acquisition to Parliament. Yet the members of their own sex were mainly responsible for their rejection at the polls. Women, as a rule, it is to be feared, have less faith in their own sex in public positions than they have in men, and there are many men who encourage their delusions. This was not the case, however, with the members of the House of Representatives who stood behind the Women's Parliamentary Rights Bill ten years ago. Among those who spoke on that occasion Sir Joseph Ward predicted that the Mother Country would follow New Zealand in opening the electoral door wide to women, and Mr. Massey looked to the day when women would add to both the dignity and the achievement of Parliament.