The Hokitika Guardian TUESDAY, MARCH 7th, 1922. A PROMISE IGNORED.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 March 1922, Page 2

The Hokitika Guardian TUESDAY, MARCH 7th, 1922. A PROMISE IGNORED.

One of the phases of the political outlook to-day, is the fact to which the “Lyttelton Times” has drawn attention that Reform newspapers nowadays selcjom discuss current political iquestions without condemning the Government. The Meat Export Control Act is disapproved by practically the whole of the New Zealand Press, and the criticism has been almost as severe in Reform as in Liberal journals. Another subject on which the Reform organs are practically agreed i» that their party has broken faith over the Legislative Council. The “Otago Daily Times” of recent date contains an indictment on this score. It says: —“Th O record of the Government in respect of the matter of reform of the Council is not one of which either Mr Massey or any of his Ministerial colleague s can feel proud. When the Re'onn Party went to the country at the general election of 1911, it w r a 9 with a definite programme, of which one of the articles read: “Reform of the

Legislative Council by replacing the present nominative Council hv one elected on the same franchise as the House of Representatives on the proportional system of voting in larger electorates.’’ The Reform Party came into power in 1912. The Legislative Council Act, providing for m reform of the constitution of the Upper House in terms of the policy expressed in the programme of the party, was passed in 1914. It is however, not yet in force.” The Dunedin journal goes on to explain that the change from nomination to election of the Council cannot come actually iiu'o operation u\ntil twelve months have elapsed following a procUiiniation to that effect. Thus the 'Act must he inoperative until after the next general election, so that this “.reform” appears now to be carefully postponed until 1925 at the earliest, or more than eleven years after the passing of the Act purporting to give effect to the policy of the Reform Party. “It may be doubted,” says our contemporary, “whether there ha s ever been a more glaring case of keeping the word of promise to the ear and breaking it to the hope than Ts presented in the Reform Party’s evasion of its undertaking in 1911 to leform, whenever it had the power, the system of appointment to the Upper House.” We may add that it is doubtfull which of the party’s numerous repudiations is the most glaring.