HUTT SEAT

Hokitika Guardian, 27 November 1929, Page 5

HUTT SEAT

VICTORY FOR, LABOUR PREDICTED. EFFECT OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM, A Labour victory in the Hutt byelection, due entirely to the present electoral system, was predicted yesterday morning by Mr P. J. O’Regan, the well-known Wellington barrister.

“ I consider that it Is.,a foregone conclusion that Labour must win the seat,” said Mr O’Regan. “As long as Mr Wilford had one opponent, he could ' probably hold the seat. He was aware.. of the fact himself, and that doubtless explains why he had but one opponent, a Labour candidate, at the general elections of 1925 and 1928. Now that Mr-Wilford has resigned, and there are three candidates in the field, I can see only one result, a victory for Labour. ■ I mention this because, as you know, I am very strongly in favour of proportional representation, and this by-election will afford one more illustration of the injustice o>f the single-member electorate.” Air O’Regan said that it should be appreciated that Labour could not; reap the same advantages from the . system in other constituencies, vljut j that, on the contrary, if a election were held now, it was certain ~* that Labour would suffer.ns fi reSidt';/. of the single-member electorate® I “ Consideration of proportional; presentation, is one .of the most dfgen£| public questions,” declared Mr o’Regan„J “ assuming that there is a have a really representative ment, and to confer on the ccj^mfin-’ : | ity a really stable Governmental' (;• “Air C. A, -Wilkinson, the tfiemlj'er , v for Egmont, pointed out during cent session that electoral boundaries ■ must be altered before the next session, and pleaded strongly for an agreement between the three pai-ties to produce . means by which the boundaries would become more permanently defined than the present law allowed,” said Mr • O’Regan. ‘‘While I heartily concur with Mr Wilkinson in his view that the boundaries are too frequently alter- . ed, I would' emphasise the fact that such a. result is inseparable tfrom the single member system, unless the population ~ basis, is discarded altogether. Under, the proportional' system,■3iow—‘ ever, Mr,Wilkinson’s.desire.is ally secured, inasmuch as ' tile* system; requires the grouping, of several electorates, andt ufidelr > the! electoral boundaries could very well be permanent. Physical features, such fid mountains- and;’ rivers Could. becomijj boundaries instead of imaginary linfej as at present/arid any shifting of pop H-j lation could be readjusted by incress» ing the number of members in one district, and decreasing it in others. .

“ The absurdity of the present system is most clearly demonstrated in the four cities, These are poliUe.il unities foi- 1 - 1 the purpose l of nlumcipfil politics, hut are arbitrarily divided fi| Parliamentary '’.elections, and surely? the interests of each city are harmofif? ous enough to justify unity for all pur-

poses ?" . fir "“It is one.of the characteristics || every real reform that, in addition to the main objective, it always secuies a number of incidental advantages, ah(J in this case stabilised .electoral bounjji aries is not the only advantage offeied. Once we have plural member electcftf ates, makitig possible ’ the'Tepresent'fis tion of every section of opinion, we will have gone far, not only towards increasing the authority of Parliament, but also to eliminating the ill-feeling and bitterness inseparable from politics under an . electoral system which disfranchises a section of the electors just as effectively as if they were deprived of their votes. “Reverting to the Hutt election, I think Mr Nash will make an excellent representative, and. that his return "dll afford added proof of the desirability of giving every section representation. I say this,” concluded Mr O’Regfirij, “ without subscribing' to everything in the Labour platform, because T am Henry George man first, last and fill {the time, and hence I am an Uncof&j promising Free Trader.” P-j,