WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 July 1922, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

ELECTORAL REFORM. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. SPECIAL TO GUARDIAN. WELLINGTON, July 25. The Frequent allusions to proportional representation during the prolonged debate on the Addross-in-Reply in the House made two things abundantly clear. One of these tilings was that only a very small proportion of the speakers understood the basic principle of the system of election they were discussing, and the other that almost without exception they favoured it or opposed it according to their party predilections. The various groups of the Opposition favoured the system because they thought it would heal the divisions in their own ranks, and Ministers and their followers opposed it because they thought it would deprive them of the advantages they now obtain from these very divisions. The negotiations between the Liberals and the Social Democrats seem to have had for their main purpose, not the better representation of the people, hut the immediate capture of the Treasury benches. On the other hand, Mr Massey and his friends, almost as flag-' rimtly, denounced the proposal, not because it was politically unsound, hut because it was personaUv inconvenient. CHANGED OPINIONS. In the House on Friday night as the debate was drawing to a close, Sir William Merries assumed the role of apologist for the Government in having changed its opinion on the question of proportional representation. “We were always up against this,” lie said, “that we con Id not stand for the 1 abolition of the country quota, nor could we approve of the almost fatal divorce of the members of the House of Representatives from their constituents. We believe that- in a country like this small electorates where a member can get into personal touch with nearly everybody in bis constituency,

are the best, although the small electorates may be inconvenient and tend to make politics parochial.” The curious thing about these words is that they are in direct opposition to all that Sir William and his colleagues wore saying of proportional representation eight years ago when they set about discharging their pledges to the electors in this respect. But of course there have been very wide changes of opinion on both sides. THE COUNTRY QUOTA.

The country quota to which Sir William and his friends attach so much import nine dates hack' as far as 1886 a ami it was in! iodine.l by Sir Robert Stout, then Pi emier in the Stcut-Vogel Government, as a temporary measure to compensate the country electors for their isolation and for the difficulty they had in getting to the [Kills to record their votes. Sir Robert was careful to explain Unit it was an expedient entirely opp sed to democratic principl *s and that it would disappear as settlement, progressed and il became pnssibl • to provide ti e country people

i'h rasonable facilities for voting. But once conceded no Government, liberal. Cnn-ervative or Reform, lias i a , J in I mb ibe nit a I elector*-' privilege. Il mr'ii- in practice that -s. vi nl;.-! w n country electors have the same represen' a lion in Parliament as one hundred town electors and that the preponderance of papulation in the towns is never rclleelcd in the Legislature. 'lbis may be expedient, even wise, but it is flagrantly undemocratic. No other country in the world makes

such a distinction. PROSPECT OF CHANG I

There is little prospect of ally change in the electoral system taking place during the life of the present Parliament. Even if the various elements of the Opposition got together for the purp .se of effecting reform in this respect, they would not be strong enough to make any impression upon Mr .Massey’s solid majorily. which, perhaps, is the best disciplined support that has sat behind any leader since constitutional Government was conceded to this country. But the solid opposition to electoral reform on one side of the House can be scarcely more discouraging to the ardent supporters of proportional representation, like the Hon George Fowlds and Mr P. J. O’Regaii, than is the lialf-hear!ed and uninspired support given to the proposal on the other side. Proportional representation for the House of Representatives is as much an election cry with the Liberal and Labour parties to-day as proportional representation for the Legislative Council was with the Reformers in ltlll. No doubt a number of the members of the Opposition are perfectly sincere in their advocacy of reform, even enthusiastic, hut the majority of them are only half-hearted and entirely lacking in the faith that moves mountains.

CO,ST OF EDUCATION. A MISAPPREHENSION. WELLINGTON, July 25. The remarks concerning the cost of education made by Mr It. A. Parkinson, the National Secretary of the New Zealand Edueationall institute, at the Auckland Training College when urging teachers and educationalists to impress on the public the paramount need of extensive and efficient education in the schools, have not escaped the notice of the politicians here. “I believe the Labour Party does appreciate the value of education, if only as a fighting force,” Mr Parkinson is reported to have said, “hut the older parties are built on economic lines, and are always taking into account the cost of education in hard cash. Even the Education Department says education is too much expense.” The members of the older parties are not resenting the suggestion that they are less well disposed towards national education than the members of the Labour Party are—that, they say, is a long discredited story—but they are protesting against Mr Parkinson’s assumption that the quality of an education system must be measured bv the amount of money it costs. They contend that tbis is an entirely fallacious conclusion and that ihe Secretary’s arguments fail from the very base upon which he has framed them. RAILWAY CONTROL.

The Farmers’ Union Conference tin’s year, as was generally expected, is playing the candid friend towards the Govrnment with more vigour than it, has thrown into the role for a long time past. Mr A. A. Ross, a delegate from Auckland, gave, the Conference a lead by moving that the State Railways should be removed from political control and placed under the management of an expert board, fn the discussion which followed, the speakers protested their desire to say nothing that would hurt the feelings of the Government, but forthwith proceeded to show that the Government had made a deplorable mess of the management of the lines. Political management, said Mr D. Bates, a gentleman from Canterbury, bad made a muddle of everything it had touched, railways, post office and the rest, these ’Departments had no rent or taxes to pay and yet they could not return ns much as ,2 per cent on the capital they era-

ployed. After a lengthy discussion some of the asperity was removed from Mr Ross’s motion, and in the form of urging more competent management the farmers’ protest was carried unanimously. POST AND TELEGRAPH. In the Mouse last night the Hon T. I O Coates, in presenting the annual report of the Post and Telegraph Department, stated that it showed an excess of receipts oyer expenditure ot .£300,000 and that in consequence there was likely to he a reduction in the charges for certain services. The Minister promised that later he would present a balance-sheet setting foi th the accounts of the Department just as would he required if it were a private concern. If he really does this, his critics say, his surplus will quickly disappear, and the public will he called on to make up in some shape or form an enormous deficiency. Unless interest on the cost of building and other equipment is charged, the same authorities maintain, the accounts will throw only a partial light upon the situation.' The popular opinion here is that a speedy return to lower charges for all its services would he the quickest cure for the financial ills from which the Department is suffering

LICENSING. The Prime Minister stated ill the House yesterday that the Licensing Committee, set up to consider matters in connection with the liquor trade, would present its report, but that there would lie no licensing legislation this session so far as the Government was concerned. The House would have an opportunity to discuss the report when it was presented, but the Minister could hold out no hopes of the determination of the Government on the .subject being affected by what might be said during the discussion. This will be a disappointment to both the active participants in the licensing campaign, and particularly to the Prohibitionists, who are anxious to have the ballot paper reduced to the two simple issues of “Continuance” and

“No License,” hut it is obvious that if this hone of contention were thrown on the floor of the* House the business of the session would be very gravely impeded.