The Dominion THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1911. HOW MANY MEMBERS?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1148, 8 June 1911, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1911. HOW MANY MEMBERS?

<, It will be remembered that some time before the results of the census were announced an outcry was raised in Dunedin against the readjustment of electoral boundaries that would bo necessary in order to bring up to its proper level the representation of this island in Parliament. "Population is not everything," wo were told, and there were appeals to the Southern members to stand firm for the maintenance of tho present arrangement. This attitude, however, was so flagrantly unjust that it could not be maintained, and it has now been abandoned and replaced by a scheme which has just as little to commend it. The idea is that the South Island electorates shall not be reduced, but. that the North Island should be given so many extra members as will make the representation of the two islands proportionate to their populations. There is missing from this proposal the inequity of the one it replaced, but we arc not sure whether it would not almost be better to leave things exactly as they arc, with this island under-represented, than to enlarge the already over-large army of legislators. Tho Dunedin Star, which is supporting the proposal to increase the number of members in the House, has been obtaining'the opinions of members upon two points: (1) Whether it is desirable to revert to a decennial census, and (2) whether they favour an increase of European members to eighty "so as to retain the present electoral boundaries as far as possible, and at the same time to give the North Island the increased representation to which she is entitled by reason of her increased population." So far sixteen members have- replied. The decennial census is favoured ■ by Messrs. Malcolm (Clutha), Scott (Tuapcka), W. T. Jennings (Taumarunui), Colvin (Buller), Clark (Chalmers), Anderson (Mataura), Hogg (Mastcrton), Sidey (Dunedin South), Guinness (Grey), and Sik William Steward (Waitaki). It is opposed by Messes. Myers (Auckland), Laukenson (Lyttelton), Pearce (Patea), and Ma'nder (Marsden). Messrs. Newman (Manawatu) aud Brown (Napier) have not made up their minds. The reasons advancccl against tho quinquennial census and redistribution of seats will strike most people as being unsound. Many of the opponents of it complain of tho cost, and that is an argument which must have weight with everybody who, like ourselves, feels that economy is one of the most urgent needs of the time. But much as we should like to have the expenses of government, reduced—and there are twenty ways in which many times the cost of the census could be saved in five "years—it seems to us that the' quinquennial ccnsus should bo maintained, for tho reason given by Mr. . Myers, namely, that "in a young and rapidly-developing country such as, this, in view of the indcfinitcncss of forecasts made by responsible officials, and the importance of immigration, it is desirable that the movements of our population should be accurately ascertained at frequent intervals." Several of the objectors to the present system declared that the quinquennial alteration of' electoral boundaries irritates and unsettles the community. Wc wonder if they really believe this. The community generally does not care a brass farthing. The plea, so often and so eloquently advanced by the Hon. T. Mackenzie, that these changes vex and worry members, is one that can only be listened to if tho doctrine is admitted that a member's seat is a sort of property of which he owns at any rate the goodwill. Wc have not yet come to quite that in New Zealand. The replies to the Star's second question were exceedingly _ various, and in some cases anything but clcar. Some of the members failed to grasp what the Star was driving at.

Mr. Colvin, for example, is "strongly in favour of an equality of representatives for each island." The member for Chalmers deps not favour the proposed innovation, on the ground tnat it would not be just to the North Island. Messrs. Myers, Anderson, Laurenson, Hogg, Pearce, Mander, and Brown, and Sir William Steward oppose it generally on the ground,that there arc enough members already. Mr. Brown, indeed, would sooner sc-e tho number of members reduced and the electorates correspondingly enlarged. There is not the smallest doubt in our mind that the public, so far as it has an opinion, shares the views of the member for Napier. Those members who think otherwise—and these arc to be found in the Reform party as well as in the ranks of the Government— must be very blind to the significance of tho half-inclination of thousands of men of all shades of political opinion to fancy that it would bo "a jolly good thing"—the phrase commonly used—if Parliament were to "shut up shop" altogether for a dozen years. Perhaps nobody who says that really means it; but his saying it is evidence enough of a very strong feeling against further enlarging a House that is already much too large and for a comparatively, small community like ours. If the ratio of members to population that at present obtains in jtfew Zealand—one to every 12,500 —were the rule in Britain there would ho in the House of Commons 3600 members. Whatever change is made in the total membership of the of Representatives must bo a reduction of the total, for tho public sees the absurdity -of. an overgrown Legislature, and has not forgotten its resentment at the increase in the honorarium to £240 a year and again to £300 a year.