Representation Bill.

I now come to a question about which there has been a great deal of talk on the part of the Opposition. Of course one does not find fault with the Opposition criticising the Government. It has been properly pointed out that the function of the Opposition is to criticise, and not propose a policy. Of course some people will say, you must not mention it, but the reason why the Opposition do not propose any policy is they have none to propose. We will not say anything about that now. But then say the function of the Opposition is criticism. I quite admit that is a function of the Opposition. Nov, let us see what their criticism has been on the Representation Bil. Why, it has been said the Govenment was not sincere in regard to the Representation Bill. It has been further said the Government should have passed the Representation Bil last year. It has been further said: Why, the Opposition were all in favor of the Representation Bil, and with their assistance the Representation Bill could have become law. That seems to me very peculiar. What were the two principles underlying the Rep resentation Bill? The two principles in the Representation Bill were—first that we were not to have constituencies mapped out to please either political parties or political men, but that we were to have a Board independent of political influence that would consider the extent of the population and the surroundings of the districts,—that this Board should fix the" constituencies throughout page 18 the Colony. That was one principle in the bill. The second principle in the bill was that the whole population was to be the basis of representation. Now what would you think of this: what would you think of the people denouncing the Government for not passing this Repreaentation Bill and in the next breath saying—Oh but we don't believe in population being the basis—you must not fix only 5000 for a country constituency, and 7000 for a town constituency. I do not care to use a harsh phrase, but was anything more absurd ever heard in the history of politics in this world? Here are men standing up before their constituents—not one, not two, but more,—and denouncing the Government for not passing a Bill on which they said they disagreed. I cannot understand such a position as that, I can understand a man standing up and saying: "Here is the Representation Bill which the Government brought in. I cordially supported it, but they would not pass it" But I cannot understand a man saying: "Here is the Representation Bill the Government brought in, the main principle of which I entirely dissent from; and yet the Government deserve severe censure that they did not pass it." I ask you to take up the speeches of every member of the Opposition who has spoken since the session, and you will find the same thing running through them. Then they say another thing. They say we do not believe in representation based on population. What will they base it on? Will they base it on area?—will they base it on rates or on the property tax they pay? What are they to base it on if not on population? They say in the next breath—and here comes the absurd inconsistency—the South Island members would not listen to giving three additional members to the North Island. They say; why should the North Island get three additional members? They say, "Oh, the population has increased, but we do not believe in representation being based on population; we do not say anything about that just now." I will undertake to say this : that if I had time to prepare a political cathecism, putting the questions and taking the answers from their speeches, and sent it to London Punch he would put it in as the biggest joke of the day, (Laughter) Well I ask the Opposition to say, is it honest of them to go about the country saying the Government is to blame for not passing the Representation Bill, and in the next breath saying—" Oh, it is all wrong; they based representation on population and that is all wrong; we will never assent to that." I charged them in the House and I charge them now with having voted for that bill when they were not prepared to, adopt its principles, I tell them, more. That if they do not base representation on population, and if they wish to give constituencies of 7000 to towns and constituencies of 5000 to country, what is desired by some will not be attained, They talk of country districts. What is a country district? Is Marton a country district? I should think not with the Mayor in the chair. (Laughter) Why, it is an insult to your Borough. (Renewed laughter.) What then is a country district? I say if they are going to have the matter settled in this way that you are to have 7000 for a town constituency—and I understand that Marton has only 700—and that you would have a 5000 constituency in the country districts, the reeult will be that the North Island will not get three additional members. We are not going to have the islands divided and treated differently; we must have the whole colony dealt with as one country. People clamour and say the North is entitled to three additional members. So it is; I am in favor of that. When they come to make the calculations—I have made them—they will find that the North Island won't get three additional. page 19 members if they say representation is not to be based on population. Since the last census there has been an increase of 18 per cent. in the population of the North Island. There has been an increase in the city and suburbs of Auckland of 53 per cent. And that increased population is not to have a fair share of representation because the re-presention in the country districts is to be different from that in the towns. And though the population in the city and suburbs of wellington has increased 30 per cent, it is not to have a fair increase of representation, what will be the result? The South Island will not lose a single member. I ask the North Island members to see what they are about. Now as to what I stated in Dunedin it has been said by Mr Bryce—I refer to him as he is present and I hope he will pardon me for doing so—I find Mr Bryce saying this—I know he would not say anything that he did not think was correct—he said "Sir Robert Stout, he noticed, had stated thus some advantage should be given to country districts, but this appeared to have been an afterthought; it was not alluded to in the Debates as far as he knew." I believe the last volume of Hansard had not been circulated when Mr Bryee made the statement. If he will refer to volume 56, p. 569, he will see what I said about the country districts, and what I said about the country districts in Dunedin was similar to what I said in the House. I said this :—" Taking six thousand as a quota, a country constituency could have five thousand five hundred, and a town district might have seven thousand. I think the provision in this respect is fair. As to this quota it has been suggested to me that it ought to vary as the population of the colony varies Possibly that is a matter which might be so varied," I recognised this question, so far as area and surroundings are concerned, in the Bill and in the House. I said in the House what I say now, that you may have to consider the question of scattered population, You must consider this question—That the principle of the Bill is that population is to be the basis of representation. And why not? How are you to define a country district? Do you mean to say that because a man lives on a farm he has got more intelligence than the man engaged in other employment? Do you mean to say that the shepherd has more intelligence than the bootmaker? This question has to be considered. You may have a small population over a large and scattered area, as was pointed out by Mr Pyke in the course of the debate. There should be some slight variation owing to the scattered area of the country districts. All I can say on the Representation Bill is this, that I shall do my best in the coming session of Parliament, if I am spared to be there, to get this Bill passed. I believe it is a fair Bill. I look on this colony not merely with a Cook Strait division. I look on this Cobny as a new nation, and I think we should lay down some principles to guide us in dealing with our laws that will be fair to all parts of the community. I do not know in dialing with political representation any fairer basis than this: that you recognise one man as one, and one man as good as every other man That is the basis of our Representation Bill. But if you choose to say the country settler is equal to a town settler, and a half more, then I am afraid you will be laying down a principle that you will find it very difficult to work out in practice and it certainly if worked out in detail, will not give the North Island the three members it expects. (Cheers.)