The Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 8, 1929. PARTIES AND GOVERNMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18780, 8 June 1929, Page 4

The Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 8, 1929. PARTIES AND GOVERNMENT.

it '-T-vJIE DEVELOPMENT of representative government - - under wide franchises has been accompanied in practically every country by an increase in the number of political parties,” writes Mr John H. Humphreys, secretary of the Proportional Representation Society, in a letter to the “ Star,” which arrived by an English mail this week. “ This change has taken place irrespective of the methods employed in electing Parliament, and one consequence has been that it is now the general rule in self-governing countries that no one party possesses a majority of the seats in Parliament.” Mr Humphreys’s letter, covering the report of the P.R. Society for the year, comes opportunely, for one of the chief objections raised to the P.R. system in New Zealand is that it “ creates ” parties, and either leads to party bargaining or fails to give one party a decisive mandate to govern. The objection, of course, rests upon the wholly mistaken belief that there is a necessary connection between single-member constituencies and a two-party system. Testing its statements by a comparative study of facts, the society shows, in its report, that in Great Britain the single-member system has not prevented the growth of a third party, and that in British Dominions the two-party system has broken down universally. New Zealand is quoted (from the “Round Table ”) as having returned representatives of seven separate parties, including Independent Reform, Independent United, Country Parly, and Independent; the Commonwealth five parties; Canada six, and the Union of' South Africa three main parties and one Independent. In each of these four Dominions the single-member system has not prevented the breakdown of the two-party alignment in politics and, in general, has given a parliament in which no party has a majority. This fact stands out so clearly in New Zealand and in the Old Country at the present moment that it hardly appears to call for comment, and yet almost the sole objection raised to P.R. attempts not only to ignore it completely, but to blame the system for creating something that has grown up independently. And nobody has proved yet that a multiplicity of parties is a bad thing in itself. Sir Joseph Ward does not seem to think so, and he gives a very timely reminder to-day that there is no party in New Zealand (and he might have added, in England) that can take liberties with either of the other parties on account of mere superiority of numbers. In such a case, party interests must take second place to the interests of the country as a whole. DOMAIN BOUNDARIES. THE PROSPECT of extending the rating area for the maintenance of Hagley Park and the Domain Gardens is not a very bright one. Indeed, the outlying bodies are already contributing a levy out of all proportion to the benefits they receive, and we are strongly of the opinion that the Government should have accepted the offer of the City Council some years ago to take over and maintain the gardens and park at its own expense. This is the onlyreasonable way out of the difficulty-. At present the Domains Board is an altogether anomalous and unrepresentative body, and if a commission is set up on the subject of boundaries it will probably recommend a narrowing rather than an extension of boundaries, on the ground that outside local bodies have their own domains to maintain, and cannot reasonably- ask the city to help them in doing so. WHAT IS BEING DONE? A CORRESPONDENT who asks what is being done about the improvement of Cathedral Square puts his linger on a weakness when he says that the conference of the City Council, the Tramway Board and the Save-the-Square Committee should not be held in camera. There may be substantial reasons for secrecy in the meantime, but the conference has never professed to arbitrate on the subject, and cannot be permitted to do so in view of the tact that the special interests of the City Council and the Tramway Board would, outweigh the public interest of the Savc-llie-Square Committee. At the earliest possible moment after the conclusion of the conference a full statement of the nature of its deliberations should be published with the alternatives, if any, that have been submitted by the Council and the Tramway- Board. The Supreme Court has held up the injunction for three months with the object of allowing the trespassers to find a way out of their difficulty-. 1 hat really ought to be the task that the present conference is engaged on, and the public arc entitled to know whether this is the case, or whether the conference is merely seeking to perpetuate the present undesirable state of affairs. ASHBURTON’S LOST RIGHTS. THE LAW under which Ashburton went dry was a law which, quite properly, gave the district the right every three yeai-s to say whether it would stay dry or go wet again. Novv, by a readjustment of electoral boundaries, Ashburton has been merged in the w-et district of Ellesmere, and its people have been deprived of the right to express an opinion on the subject of restoration. It would he assumed, in any well-governed country, that such rights w-ould be jealouslypreserved, and therefore it is argued that as those rights have been taken aw-ay there can he no occasion for exercising them, because the district has automatically gone wet. This view is strengthened by the provision of the law w hich says that when the boundaries of a dry district are extended to include portions of a wet district, the licenses in those portions are automatically extinguished. On the principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Ashburton ought now- to have its licenses revived automatically, but the licensing committee has declined to lake the responsibility, and has suggested a test case in the Supreme Court. That seems to he the wise course to pursue, because admittedly the Licensing Act is shockingly anomalous, and it is hard to say- what interpretation might 1)C decided upon by the higher courts. If licenses cannot be restored in Ashburton, we have the highly anomalous and unjust position that the old no-license district of Ashburton from now on to all eternity must remain dry-. The alternatives its people can have at a licensing poll arc either National Prohibition or Continuance, and Continuance means the continuance of no-license in Ashburton. Clearly the law must be amended. Indeed, it is a moot point whether the act of depriving Ashburton of a vote on local restoration last November did not invalidate the w-hole licensing poll of the Dominion.