CIVIC ELECTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 106, 31 October 1936, Page 10

CIVIC ELECTIONS

PROPERTY VOTES

ABOLITION CLAUSE

A VIGOROUS DEBATE

What Government members* called "bricks and mortar voting" has been eliminated from municipal elections by the adoption in the Statutes Amendment Bill of a clause abolishing the right of corporate bodies to exercise the franchise. The proposal was strongly resisted by Opposition members, who made their remarks on the short title of the Bill in Committee. The discussion came to a climax when Mr. S. G. Holland (National, Christchurch North) emphatically declared that if they stayed there for a month they would not agree to this clause, whereupon the Prime Minister instantly moved the closure, and the short title had to go to a prompt decision, and it was adopted.

Mr. W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) said that in his view the clause should be strenuously opposed. They were proposing to remove a principle that had been fought for over the years. The clause would have the effect of depriving a.number of people of the franchise in municipal elections. Surely the people who paid the rates had the right to nominate and support their own candidates. Mr. Bodkin asked the Attorney-General if he would give an indication of how far he proposed to go with the Bill.

The Attorney-General (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) said he did not think it would be necessary to drop many clauses. A number of the clauses were important, and he could see no reason why they should be postponed.

An Opposition member: What about clause 50?

Mr. Mason said that that clause was essential, and the Government would have to insist on its passage.

The Attorney-General added that he did not think the end of the world would come if some of the clauses in the Bill were dropped

Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (National Riccarton) said he did not think the end of the world would come if clause 50 were dropped. "I believe that the Christchurch tramways would still go on if the clause were dropped," he said. .

The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage): It would put a brake on progress.

Mr. Kyle: I don't think there would be any brake at all. The Labour Party has always stood for the liberty and freedom of the subject, and here it is taking away that right. This is the greatest piece of dictatorship that has evep been perpetrated in this country. It deprives about 2000 citizens of Christchurch of the right to vote.

Mr. A. G. Osborne (Government, Manukau): It establishes a principle.

Mr. Kyle: A principle! I believe that this principle has stood for years. Why should a company be deprived of the right of voting for the Tramways Board or the City Council?

The Minister of Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong): Do yon want a build' ing to vote?

Mr. Kyle: I want the people who pay the rates on a building to vote.

, Mr. Armstrong: You might gejt a (better Government if you allowed the sheep and cows to vote. NO DIRECT RESULT. The Attorney-General said that the present provision in the law had been slipped through in 1926, when members did not realise its significance. If the legislation had worked . satisfactorily up to 1926 he did not see that there would be any dreadful results as a result of the change that was proposed now.

The Minister of Public Works (the Hon. R. Semple) said the bricks and mortar clause was sneaked through the House of Representatives in 1926. At the time no one saw its reactionary efforts. "Not only can individuals vote —and they did so eight or ten times at :the last municipal elections — but individuals representing dead people can vote," declared the Minister.

Mr. Bodkin: Trustees pf deceased estates. . »

The Minister: Yes, trustees of deceased estates voted more than once in the interests of the dead people.

Opposition chorus: They paid the rates. .

The Minister said they had a vote and that was all they were entitled to. In this enlightened age bricks and mortar should not be. allowed to determine the fate of nations. If the law under discussion applied to Parliamentary elections it would not be tolerated. Why then should it apply to municipalities? It was as important to have definite human representation in the municipal halls as in Parliament— reflecting the intelligence of the majority of the people. Nothing could justify one man voting ten times at a municipal election, and yet one man had voted twenty times at the last election. A man could live in the Hutt and Vote there, and come into the city and have two or three offices and exerise a vote,for each one. It was not right, and it was undemocratic.

Mr. W. P. Endean (National, Parnell): He pays the rates.

Mr. Semple asked whether the coun-

try was to be governed according to the people's capacity to pay?- He had lived in a country where broad acres and bricks and motor determined its destiny. He was surprised that any member of the House should champion such a principle.

"It is not in keeping with modern methods of municipal or national government that one man should have the right to vote for a man who has been in the cemetery for forty years," continued Mr. Semple.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forbes): An exaggeration.

Mr. Semple: It is no exaggeration. I can mention deceased estates where men have been in the Karori Cemetery for twenty years and votes have been exercised for them. A man who has been in Karori Cemetery for twenty years has more votes than ten men alive in the city. (Laughter.) I can mention the names. Mr. K. J. Holyoake (National, Motueka): Do they still send them the rate notices? (Renewed laughter.) Mr. Semple: The hon. gentleman probably knows more about that than I do. ENTITLED TO VOTE. Mr. R G. Dickie (National, Patea) said, he was a director of a freezing company which employed hundreds of men and paid thousands of pounds in wages. Surely he was entitled to a vote. Mr. Semple: Does the hon. gentleman want a vole for bobby calves? Mr. Dickie: I would not give a vote to a Minister either who did not pay rates. He sa^id the legislation was not "sneaked" .through the House in 1926 as was suggested by Mr. Semple. Much had been said about people who were in the cemetery exercising a vote, but that was not the case. The vote was exercised by people administering deceased estates or by the representatives of beneficiaries. It appeared that they were not to have a vote. Mr. Semple: They have a vote. Mr. Dickie: I am surprised that a member holding responsible office can voice such puerile and silly nonsense. Mr. Holland said the Bill was introduced on account of the coining Christchurch Tramway Board election which would take place next month. The Opposition, he declared, would oppose the clause being passed even if the House remained for another month. The noise which resulted approached to uproar above which could be heard "hear hears" from the Opposition I benches. When order was restored the Prime Minister calmly rose to his feet and moved the closure. The closure was applied by 48 votes to 18, and the' short title carried immediately afterwards by 46 votes to 19. ATTACK RESUMED. Holding up a sheaf of telegrams of protest from Christchurch Mr. Holland resumed the attack on the clause when it was reached in the committee stages last evening.

"Who are they from?" asked the Minister of Railways (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan).

Mr. Holland rejoined that his side never rigged its telegrams, and he proceeded to state that he had telegrams in his hand from Frederick Cross and Sons, Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., Andersons, Ltd., and Beath and Company, Ltd., of Christchurch, adding that' he had a "swag" of others as well.

Against a barrage of interjections by Government members, Mr. Holland criticised the Labour Party for abolishing the voting power of companies and corporate bodies, and retaining the occupier franchise. He declared that half the Labour members of the Christchurch City Council could not hold their seats if it were not for the fact that they rented rooms in the Trades Hall. .

Mr. Kyle said the clause was the most glaring example of sectional legislation ever attempted in the Dominion.

Other Opposition members carried on the attack, and after the clause had been under discussion for 25 minutes the Prime Minister rose amid cries of "Here comes the gun," and moved the closure.

Mr. Bodkin raised a point of order that the rights of the minority would be denied if the closure were carried.

The Chairman of Committees (Mr, E. J. Howard, M.P.), said that he had ruled that the closure motion should be put, and it was not necessary for him to give reasons for his xuling.

Mr. Kyle attempted to raise a further point of order, but was vigorously rung down by the chairman, who said that his ruling could not be discussed.

Mr. S. G. Smith (National, New Plymouth) asked if he would be in order in moving a report progress so that the ruling of Mr. Speaker. could be obtained. .

"No, I won't accept that motion," replied Mr. Howard. '.'I did not make the rules of the House; I'm only here to carry them out."

There were roars of dissent and a babble of voices when the motion was put to the vote, a division being called for.

"How do you like what you gave us?" called out Mr. D. W. Coleman (Government, Gisborne) to the Opposition while the division bells were, ringing.

"We were sold; we will know better next time," Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) replied.

"You were warned when you put it in the book," commented Mr. Coleman.

: The closure motion was carried by 37 votes to 19, and the clause was passed by a similar vote.

The Bill was subsequently passed,

Some police court probation officers in England receive as little as £25 a year for their responsible work. In 1934, 313 officers were paid £20 or less.