WELLINGTON NOTES

Hokitika Guardian, 23 May 1923, Page 1

WELLINGTON NOTES

PRIME MINISTER. AND IAIPERIAL CONFERENCE. ATTITUDE OF OPPOSITION. [Special To Tub Guardian.] WELLINGTON, May 21. Though Air Wilford, the leader of tlie Liberal Opposition, declines to discuss for publication the attitude of his party towards the proposed trip of the Prime Alinister to the Imperial Conference, it is not to he supposed that he objects to Air Massey being away from the country for four or five months so long as he makes arrangements for the affairs of the country being efficiently administered during

bis absence He pokes fun at tlie fervour „f Mr Bonar I-au-’s invitation to the Prime Alinister. professing to

know how such tilings are engineered, and lie refuses to believe that the safety and well being of the Empire depends upon the Dominion’s foremost statesman being in London next October; but lie would not grudge the Alinister the trip if he could give Parliament and the public such assurances as they had a right to expec t. Other members of the Opposition express themselves with less diffidence on this subject. They recall that during Air .Massey’s last absence from the Dominion, the Alinister sitting in the Legislative Council, without any responsibility to the electors, aeted ns his locum tenons. They want to know if tho Prime Minister’s colleagues in the House are to be affronted ill this way again and if tlie country is going to put up with such an arrangement. THE AiORAL FROM QUEENSLAND.

The “Evening Post” in u leading article attempts to point the moral it has discovered in the progress reports of the Queensland .elections. —“Three cornered contests have recently been conducted in Great Britain and New Zealand,” it says, “and in New Zealand with results similar to those of Queensland —an accession of strength to tlie united party. The lesson to he learned from the Queensland election results by these who fear a preponderance of any one-class interest in Parliament is the paramount necessity for unification of forces and avoidance ol vote-splitting. This implies intelligent organisation and some degree of selfsacrifice.” When these weighty words were written the figures for the Queensland elections showed that the Labour Party with 161,361 votes had secured forty-four seats, and the antiLa'bour Parties with 100,948 votes between them twenty-eight seats. Obviously the Labour Party with a seat for every 328 U votes had secured more than its fair share of representation, which the ant i-Ijahour Parties with a seat for every 5,047 votes had received much less than its fair share. NEW ZEALAND’S POSITION.

But nothing like this occurred in New Zealand at the recent general election. Here there were 611,037 votes recorded in the seventy-five European constituencies and according to an authority who lias carfully analysed the figures 258,031 were cast for lieform candidates, 188,832 for Liberal candidates and 25,704 for Independent candidates. On these figures the Reformers, had their successes been in proportion to their votes, would have secured 32 seats, while the number they actually won was 33. 'I ho Liberals should have secured 23.3 seats had they been able to split,a member, and actually non twenty-two; the Labourites 17.5 ami 18 respectively, and tbe Independents 3.2, and 2 respectively. The Reformers, of course, also secured the Bay of Plenty scat, where Air Tv.

Williams was elected without a contest. In these figures, Mr Isitt and Mr Witty, who voted with the Government- on Air \\ iltord’s no-confid-ence motion, are counted as Liberals, and Colonel Bell, who also followed -Mr Massey into the “noes” lobby, as an Independent. Almost as nearly as possible .in the contested elections the results, widely unlike those of Hie 191.9 election, were those that would have been obtained under a system of proportional representation. Tlie moral enunciated by the “Post” may he sound enough, but it cannot be deduced from the figures of the last New Zealand election.

PHOI'ORTIOXA T, R IvI‘RF.SKXT'ATIOX Tlic “Dominion” this morning publishes an interview in which Mi- E. 11. Andrews, one of the successful candidates, roundly denounces the system of proportional representation employed at the recent municipal elections in Christchurch. “If proportional representation,” Mr Andrews is reported as saving, “has not. received its death blow," then the plain lessons of these elections—of confusion, unwarranted expense, informal voting, and undue '’reference received !>v candidates whose names appeared early on the ballot papeis, will have boon overlooked hv bewildered voters.” Part of the trouble, according to Air Andrews’s own admissions, appears to have arisen from three different methods having boon prescribed for marking the ballot papers. The mayoral issue required a cross at the right of the candidate’s name: harbour board and hospital board, figures indicating preference on tiio left hand, and loan poll striking mi! one line. Rut apart from these invitations to confusion there appears to have been many opportunities for mistakes and informalities, and i»e advocates of proportional representation will have to he in the field quickly ii they hope to refute effectively Mr Andrew's indictment.