ELECTORAL REFORM.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 150, 31 July 1914, Page 8

ELECTORAL REFORM.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

[From our own Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, July 30". Mr W. A. Veitc-h (Wangahui) moved the second reading of the Proportional Representation Effective Voting Bill. He explained that the measure contained complete machinery for carrying out the principle of proportional representation, and gave greater facilities for people in isolated country places to record their votes. He believed that special representation of the Native race had operated greatly to their detriment, and the Bill abolished it. The I Bill which had been introduced in the other Chamber was incomplete, and would have to' be amended to confirm this one. (Laughter.) The author of that Biil did not know as much about proportional representation as he did. , The purpose for which he had introduced the Bill was primarily to get rid of the party boss system, which operated detrimentally throughout the work of Parliament. There was an ever-increas-ing feeling in New Zealand against the present system. Although it was called party politics it was not—it was personal politics. It was party boss politics. Public feeling would very soon grow so strong that if the present Parliament refused to put his measure on the Statute Book it would insist upon such a measure being adopted. To-day the land-owners ruled Parliament, and that was wrong. It would be in the interests of industrial peace if a system of elects ing members of Parliament were adopted which would provide that all sections of the community would be reawas all the measure provided for. j Sir Joseph Ward said he had listened! with considerable interest to a speech j which would "have done credit to any of the silent Reformers. He did not ] agree with those who said that much good ever resulted from a private Bill being introduced on a matter which, before it became law, must be submitted by the Government of the day. They had been told that a substitute for the second ballot was to be provided; .now they had the extraordinary spectacle of seeing the Government pledging itself to proportional representation for the Legislative Council and committing itself, through the Minister of Marine, to the same system for local bodies. They had had the Prime Minister himself voting for proportional representation for the Lower House. The position was a singularly remarkable one. The Premier was afraid to trust the people; if he was not, should he go back on his publicly-made pledges? There could only be one reason for it: the Government would not trust the people. Mr H. G. Ell (Christchurch South) would support the second reading, but in Committee would vote for smaller electoral districts. The great value he saw in the proposal of Mr Yeitch was that he was going to provide for truer representation. THE COUNTRY QUOTA. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that under the present system there was representation of the majority only, but this Bill would provide for fuller representation, So far as he iyas concerned, he wanted to see the 28 per cent, country quota abolished. Mr T. H. Davey (Christchurch East) was afraid that the country members | of the House would see that no proporjtional representation was carried. His ! opinion favoured proportional representation, but he failed to see how it was going to be a success without an elective executive. The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher said that in *tlie Budget of 1912 there had appeared a paragraph foreshadowing the introduction of proportional representation. As far as he was concerned -ifyis intention was genuine. He had the 3|ill drafted, aifi it was still ready, drafted. A member: Well, bring it down. Mr Fisher: It is all very well to say bring it down. He went on to say that proportional representation was impossible without abolishing the quota. Mr McCombs: Nonsense. Mr Fisher said it might be done in such an objectionable manner that the House would not pass it. He publicly challenged the Proportional Representation Society of New Zealand to bring down a successful scheme in this direction. , » Mr G. Russell (Avon) said th'at for the first time the House liad learned that that portion of the Budget dealing with proportional representation was drafted by Mr Fisher himself, and not by Cabinet. Why did not the Government bring down a substitute for the second ballot? The reason was that the proposal of the Minister was turned down at a caucus of the "Reform" Party. Opposition members: Ah! Mr Russell said that the Government was not asking for proportional representation for the Upper House. Mr Fisher: Where there is no country quota. Mr Russell: That is where the Government is shown up. How, in face of what the Minister said, could the Government bring in proportional representation for the Upper House and not provide the quota there? There is no argument in the Government's position. Mr Russell continued that the truth was that there had been an exhibition of humbug by the Government in this matter. The member for Wanganui had trumped the Government's card in bringing down their own Bill to apply to the Lower House, and they were afraid of it. Mr Yeitch having replied, the second reading was negatived on a division by 28 votes to 27. T1l{? following is the division list: — Ayes (27). Noes (28). Atmore Allen Buxton Bell Craigie R. F. Bollard Davey Bradney Ell Buchanan Fisher Campbell Forbes Coates Glover Dickson Harris Guthrie Isitt Herdman M'Callum Hunter M'Combs Lee M '.Kenzie Malcolm Payne Noswortliy Poland Okey Rangihiroa Pearce Robertson Pornare Russell Reed Seddou R. H. Rhodes Sidey T. W. Rhodes R. \V. Smith Scott J. C. Thomson F. 11. Smith Witch Statham Ward Sykes Wi-lford G. M. Thomson Witty Webb Young Wilkinson Wilson Pairs. For. Against. Dickie Buick ,Vii<t<io Massey Brown Fraser Anderson Maudcr i