THE BILL CARRIED.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXIII, Issue 8725, 26 November 1913, Page 2

THE BILL CARRIED.

(Per Press Association.)

WELLINGTON November 25. Shortly before the dinner adjournment in the House- this afternoon Sir Joseph Ward moved that the Legislature Amendment Bill be ■re-committed for the purpose of inserting a clause providing for preferential voting, He said the proposal had been submitted to a tired and jaded House in the early hours of the morning, and he thought it should' receive more mature consideration.

The Prime Minister said they had the second ballot forced upon them by. Sir Joseph Ward, and he thought they should hesitate before they adopted another system on his reeozamendation.

On the House resuming at 7.30 p.m., the debate on Sir Joseph W.ard's amendment was carried on by Mr Russell, who, demanded a more scientific method of securing majority representation.

,The Hon. F. MB. Fisher, declared that, the' preferential S3 rstem gave some electors two votes, and his side of the House believed in one. man one vote. Proportional representation was out of | the question/ because it could not be established unless the.; country quota was abolished, and it was perfectly evident that the country quota could riot be abolished in that House. In his opinion the solution of our electoral difficulties was proportional representation in the "'pities.'.-' "'. '

•\\TheHon. D. Buddo contended that the device of the Government was now perfectly clear; they hoped to win in the country on the quota and to sweep the cities with proportional representation. The Government was committed to some,substitute for the second ballot in their Budget, and if they voted against Sir Joseph Ward's amendment they would be stultifying themselves. .■■The'debate''was'..continued until 2.20 a.m., when Sir Joseph Ward's 'amendment was rejected by 33 to 24.. s Third Reading. The motion for the third reading was then taken.

Sirt Joseph Ward denounced the method that had been adopted to force through the House a Bill upon which the people had, never expressed an opinion, and which was contrary in its nature to all the avowed professions of the Government , which had on several occasions intimated that some substitute would be provided for the second ballot.

Mr Massey- denied that the Government had broken its pledges. He was not going to rush .in where angels feared to tread. He knew that the proposal of the Government was not perfect, but they had to find something better. It had been suggested thai proportional representation should bo applied to the cities. He did not know that this was not the best suggestion that could be made. The methods adopted by the Opposition to block the Bill were unparalleled, and therefore they need not be surprised if unusual means were adopted to meet that obstruction. The second ballot was expensive and demoralising, and "he was only sorry that he did not take time last' session and repeal it then. If preferential voting was so good, why did the Commonwealth of Australia not adopt it when it was in operation in some of the Australian States? Ho was proceeding to justify the action of the Chairman of Committees in breaking down the, stonewall when he was stopped by the time limit. Mr Russell maintained that the i repeal of the second ballot was entirely due to the defeat of the Government at the Grey by-election. The debate was proceeding when the Telegraph Office closed at 2 a.m. WELLINGTON, November 26. After the telegraph office closed at 2 o'clock, the Hon. F. M. B. Fisher, in his reply, declared that obstruction had taken place on the Bill because it was likely to destroy an unholy alliance which existed between the two minorities of politics in the country. Sir Joseph Ward denied there was' any alliance between his and any other party in the country. Continuing, Mr Fisher said the Opposition had endeavoured to embarrass the Government inside the House while it was face to face with a great industrial struggle outside. It was about time the leader of the Opposition declared which side he was on— whether he was on the side of law and order, or on the side of anarchy. At the conclusion of the Minister's speech, Sir Joseph Ward again emphatically denied there was any compact between -the Liberals ,and the Labour Party—the statement was a most unfair one. He also stated that the Opposition;had purposely, refrained 'from referring, in the House, to the strike, but he, would take an early opportunity of; doing so in a constitutional way.

A division \fas then taken on the third reading, Svhen the Bill was carried by 33 to %9, The House rose at 3.30;