THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1913. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 12 June 1913, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1913. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Mr Robert McNab, who, when in Parliament, was an advocate of the system of proportional representation, has addressed an open letter to the Hon. H. D. Bell, in which ho criticises the proposals of the Gov-arnuent in respect to the Legislative Council. Mr McNab has, apparently, given the subject deep thought, and hi 8 viows are worthy of close consideration. In the first place he states that, as the party with which he has been identified has turned down the proposal, he has no alternative but to help those who axe endeavouring to bring about the reform. Ho draw s attention to the inconvenience that will be occasioned if the proposal to divide the Dominion into two constituencies (North and South) is adhered to, and says:— If you examine the census returns' of 1911 you will find that the population of the -North Island was then 563,000, while that of the South lalond was 444,000. And I feel sure that the discrepancy is oven greater a't the present moment. Why, therefore, i« the same [ number of members allotted to the ' twe islands? '£h» aingde aleotorat» system in vogue »p to «ow ka#

ignored every rule that you or I can lay clown that should regulate representation, but you are in the fortunate position of having a clean Blate, and a clear course to provido the most perfect representation in the world. If you start by requiring more men residing in one island than you require residing in the other to elect a member, you ore just sU electorally immoral aa if you did what we do now, namely give all the representation, to the majority and treat the minority as if they cumbered the ground. If you examine the figures I have just given you will .see that they boar the relation of 9 to 11, two numbers, which, when added togothor, provido the 20 you desire for the Dominion. On this ground alone, if thoro i s no serious objection to it, you should change the numbers to 9 and 11.

Mr McNab also points out tho necessity for having a working majority in Parliament, and ho «ays that this would bo impossible if an even number of «lector s is provided for. In this connection, ho quotes the Tat>inauian figures as instructive. In that State, six has been soleoted aa the number of members to be elected by a constituency, and a list of the voting shows the parties securing representation 3 to 3 in monotonous succession, even when there is a great discrepancy in the voting. Before tho Tasmanians adopted this system, they were warned to avoid an even numbor, but they knew better, and persisted in adopting it, with what results are now known to the public. Mr MoNab states that the most j popular objection to the Government's proposal that he has heard, is tho feeling that large electorates tend to be pocket boroughs for the rich, and that, to give the poor man a chance, the electorates should be as small as passible. In answer to this objection, he quote* the recent experience in Australia. There, he says, where the Senato electorates are state-wide, Labour has secured almost a monopoly of the seats, while in the small electorates of the Lower House, Labour has had a tremendous fight. . "After a lot of consideration given to this aspect of the subject," "ays Mr McNab, "I am quite satisfied that wide areas do not mean representation of the wealthy. If, however, you have to reduce the area to get your Bill through, see that your electorates are so divided that they will return not less than seven mom- ; bore at the very leti't. Above all ', .things, do not allow any even number of members to he returned for one constituency." The advice given by Mr McNab will doubtless be given full consideration by the Government. ' It appears to have been tendered in the very best of spirit and by one who not only knows something of his subject, but is animated by a conscientious desire to see a reform in our . obsolete and unsatisfactory electoral system.