The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1945. Electoral Reform Debate

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23346, 1 November 1945, Page 4

The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1945. Electoral Reform Debate

J\ moving the second reading of the Electoral Reform Bill in the House ot Representatives last night, the Prime Minister, with ample time at his disposal, might have been expected to give a convincing account of the necessity for introducing legislation which lias the primary pin pose of abolishing the country quo a, and of altering the basis of Parliamentary representation in New Zealand. Mr Fraser, however, contented himself with excursions into old nolitical history, and he even sought justification for what his Government is planning to do now in the actions of Gladstone in 1885. Mr Fraser was obviously ill at case; his heirt was not in the debate, and it is fair to conclude that lie is not really a spirited supporter of the legislation. Mr E. B. Corbett was probably not far from the truth when he said that the measure “had been artificially conceived bv the backroom laboratory boys of the Labour Party.” Their one concern is to retain power and they evolve the schemes which unfortunate Government speakers have to defend to the best of their ability in the House. There is not a better Parliamentary debater in New Zealand than the Prime Minister, so the merits of the Bill can,best be judged by the wobbling discursive defence of the legislation which Mr Fraser made last night. The most important statement made by the Prime Minister was that in which he said that no section was going to move the Government by its threats. This was clearly addressed to the protesting farming organisations. '“To use the country’s economy for political purposes was rebellion,” said the Prime Minister. Other more militant organisations have used the country’s economy for even less than political purposes at a time when the arrival of the Japanese was not altogether out of the question. That was called striking, not rebellion. Mr Fraser’s statement naturally raises the question of the extent to which a minority is e'ntitled to protest against what it regards as an attack upon its established rights. A militant Labour organisation suffering under a real or imagined grievance can bring the Government to heel in a short lime, but apparently no other section of the community is expected to exercise such belligerent privileges. Actually, there is little the farming community can do to turn the Government from its legislative intentions; farmers, in taking militant action, would impose hardship upon the rest of the community and they would almost certainly be too scrupulous to do that. Nevertheless, they are entitled to tell the Government what they think, and the Government, aware of the real indefensibility of its action, should not object to forthright criticism from the farming organisations. Government, speakers, in answering the demand for a referendum on the country quota question, fall back on old and not necessarily relevant precedents for constitutional changes. The truth is, as every moderately adroit debater knows, that precedents can be found for every line of conduct, honourable and dishonourable. The only duty imposed upon a Government, as upon individual citizens, is to act squarely, and, where possible, to give a frank explanation of the reasons for certain courses of action. That the Government has been exceedingly uneasy about the country quota question is shown by the evasiveness exhibited by all Government speakers, particularly in country electorates, during the past few years. The coal was 100 hot to handle, so alert and far-seeing supporters of the Government left it alone. With disarming innocence the Prime Minister suggests that the people will be able to pass judgment on the Electoral Amendment Bill at the next election. That is like telling a man his throat is going to be cut first, but he will be free Jo discuss the morality or otherwise of the operation some months hence. The plain truth is that the Labour Party, well aware of the discouraging electoral trend, is depending upon boundary adjustments as a defence at the next election. lhe device may work, but it may also have a boomerang effect. However, the Government is prepared to risk that; in desperation it has to take It is impossible to devise a completely just electoral system, but the one which has been operating in this country for more than 50 years has been fairly satisfactory. It has allowed for periodical changes of Government and on the whole it has given good rough justice to the politicians and the people. It has worked well enough not to be changed solely on the ground of political expediency, and boundaries should certainly not be altered on lhe basis of a rushed census taken before the Dominion has recovered from the dislocations of war and the unnatural shifts of population made necessary by the war. It would have been kinder of Labour’s “backroom boys” not to place their Parliamentary friends in the embarrassing position of having to defend legislation which is so obviously indefensible.