WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 June 1921, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

ELECTORAL REFORM

THE COUNTRY QUOTA

(Our Special Correspondent;

WELLINGTON, June 10

“New Zealand boasts of having the most democratic parliamentary franchise in the world, and yet, as a matter of fact, it has one of the least democratic among progressive nations. It gives the resident in the country 28 per cent more voting power than the resident in the towns and so entrenches the least intelligent and observant section of the comunify behind a rampart of privilege.” So said a “sane” member of the.Labour Party to-day in making excuses for the extravagant language of some of his less temperate fellows. “How can you expect the workers m the towns,” lie asked, “to accept Parliament as a truly representative institution, when it is deliberately stuffed in order to give an advantage to a minority over a majority?” He was referring, of course, to what is popularly known as the “country quota,” the provision of the electoral law which gives to 72 residents in a rural district the same parliamentary representation as is enjoyed by 100 in an urban district.

ITS GENESIS. This anomaly in the electrical law of the Dominion is nearly half a century old. In one shape or another it has existed since the early seventies, and was saddled on to the country in its present form bv the Stout-\ ogel Government forty years ago. Then it was regarded as a tenfporary expedient to give the sparsely settled country districts a greater voice in the direction of the affairs of the young colony thnr they would have exercised had representation been placed upon a purely population basis. Sir Robert Stout himself said at the time the concession to tin country constituencies was illogical and undemocratic and Sir James Allen, who then represented a city constituency, denounced it as unfair and irrational. Pint the country districts having obtained the privilege have since jealously guarded it and no politico’ leader yet has arisen with sufficient courage to propose its abolition. Even Labour has tolerated it without seriom protest. NOMINAL VOTERS. Tho effect' of the provision for tin “country quota” is shown by the distribution of parliamentary represents tion after the last census. The actual population of the Dominion at that time (1010) was 1,142,081. exclusive ol Maoris, consisting of 574,077 urban residents and 567,404 rural residents. Twenty-eight per cent was added to the number of the rural residents, bringing tho “nominal” population up to 1,600,954, and the quota, the number of residents, actual and nominal, required to return a member to the House ol Representatives, was ascertained by dividing t!ie “nominal” population b;. seventy-six, the number of seats to Infilled. This gave forty-two members ti the North Island and thirty-four to the South. Of course, the system operates quite fairly as between the two Islands, they being placed on exactly the sam< footing in this respect, and it is interesting to note that in 1910 the numbers of purely rural and purely urban constituencies in the North Island were twelve and seven respectively and in the South nine and seven respectively.

THE EFFECT." It is significant, however, that at the last general election of the twenty-one purely rural constituencies eighteen returned supporters of the Reform Government and only three supporters of the Liberal Party. Of the fourteen purely urban constituencies, six returned Labourites, three Liberals, three Beformcrs and two Independents. This reflects very plainly the sharp differences of political opinion, judged in hulk, between the country and the town. The country, speaking generally, is conservative in its tendencies, and the town progressive, using the terms in theLr non-party sense. But though this may or may not ho good for the Dominion as a whole, it obviously is out of harmony with its democratic professions. New Zealand by adopting a franchise unknown in any other part of the world, has placed a break upon the registration of popular opinion, which in the judgment of the authority quoted, very seriously impairs the representative character of Parliament.