WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 July 1922, Page 8

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

ELECTORAL (REFORM. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. (Special Correspondent.) Wellington, July 25. The frequent allusions to proportional representation during the prolonged der.. bate on the Address-in-Reply in the House made two things abundantly clear. One of these things was that only a very small proportion ’of the speakers understood the -basic principle of the system of election they„w T ere cussing, and the other that almost without exception they favored it or opposed it according to their party predilections. The various groups of the Opposition favored the system because they thought it would. Iveal the divisions in their own ranks, and Ministers and their followers opposed because thoy 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, but : the immediate capture of the Treasury Benches. On the other hand, Mr. Massey, and his friends, almost as flagrantly,, denounce the proposal, not because it .was. politically unsound, but because it was perso-nally inconvenient. . CHANGED OPINIONS. In the House on Friday night, as the debate was drawing to a close, Sir William Herries assumed the role of apologist for tne Government in saving changed its opinion on the question of proportional representation. “We were I always up against this,” he said, "that we eopld not stand for the abolition of the country quota, nor could we approve of the almost total 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 his constituency, are the best, although the small electorates may be inconvenient and tend to make polities parcohial.” The curious thing about these words is that they are in direct opposition to all-. Sir William and his colleagues were 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, tn which Sir William and his friends attach so much importance, dates back as -.far as 1886, when it was introduced by Sir Robert Stout, then Premier in the Stout-Vogel Government, as a temporary measure to compensate the country electors for their isolation and for the difficulty they had in getting to the polls to record their votes. Sir Robert was careful to explain that it was an expedient entirely opposed to democratic principles, and that it would disappear as settlement progressed, and it. became possible to provide the country people with reasonable facilities for voting. But, once conceded, no Government, Liberal, Conservative or Reform, has dared to tquch the rural electors’ privilege. It means in practice that seventy-two country electors have the same representation in Parliament as one hundred town electors, and that the preponderance of population in the towns is never reflected in the Legislature. PROSPECT OF CHANGE. There is little prospect of any change in the electoral system taking place during the life of the present Parliament. lEven if the various elements of the Opposition got together for the purpose of effecting reform in this respect, they would not be strong enough to make any impression upon Mr. Massey’s solid majority, which, perhaps, is the best disciplined support that has sat behind any leader since constitutional Government was conceded in 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. O’Regan than is the half-hearted 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 Labor parties to-day as proportional representation for the Legislative Council was with the Reformers in 1911. No doubt a number of the members, of the Opposition are perfectly sincere in +heir advocacy of reform, even enthusv as tic, but the majority of them are only half-hearted*<and entirely lacking in the faith that moves mountains.

BEEF CONSUMPTION. The Prime Minister and Mr. David Jones, the chairman of the Meat Control Board, are starting a mild agitation for the promotion of beef consumption.with-, in the Dominion, and beef, it seems, .even beef of the very best quality, is a-drug on the London market, owing to the large supplies being sent forward from i South America, and Mr. Massey and Mr. I Jones between them have conceived the i happy idea that if the people of the Do- • minion could be induced to eat more ; beef and less mutton and lamb it would : be a very good thing for the country in I general, and for the farmers in particuI lar. The demand, for mutton and lamb /at Home is comparatively good, and ’ likelv to be better, but there appears to !be no prospect for beef. In the House i yesterday afternoon, Mr. Jones put a question to the Prime Minister on the ■ subject, and, of course, got the expected Irepiy; but the fate of their scheme deI pends largely upon the action of thrt retail butchers. If they offered beef for ! local consumption at the London parity they probablj’ would not lack for buyi ers.