ELECTORAL REFORM

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 10168, 24 July 1924, Page 8

ELECTORAL REFORM

AN AMENDING OIL*..

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 23. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, in connection with the Legislature Act Amendment Bill, introduced by the Prime Minister, Mr Holland said he hoped the Bill would not he persisted in. He presumed it was the same Bill as was last session, and, if so, it was simply an attempt to jerrymander the elections. If the Bill proposed to establish proportional representation on proper lines it would receive the whole-hearted support of the Labour Party hut they could not support this hybrid Bill which, no doubt, sought to give the Reform Party what representation they considered they were entitled to in the cities, while they were to hold their present privileges in the country electorates. He traced the political development of New Zealand from the state of a Crown Colony to show that the whole tendency had been to strug-o-le for democratic principles. Inra Bill was not democratic, and he could not support it. He asked wliat would haopen if the Bill became law. Mr Massey: Which Bill P Mr Holland: The Bill the Prime Minister is asking leave to introduce. Mr Massey: You have not seen it. Mr Holland: If we have not seen it, then a breach of faith has been committed so far as this House is conMr Massey; No, that ia not so.

Mr Holland contended that it was so, • because the Minister of Customs placed it on the table in the form 01 a Parliamentary paper to enable members to make themselves acquainted, with its terms before being called upon to deal with it. The Hon’. J. Hanan said the introduction of the measure showed that the Government recognised that the “first past the post” system was unfair and undemocratic. He would support the measure, as it meant that people would have a wider range of choice ol representatives. He hoped that the Government was not indulging 111 a piece of pretence. ■ Mr Forbes said they would have to wait to see what difference had been made in the Bill since last session. Mr Massey: I did not say it was not the same Bill. I said it was not necessarily the same Bill. Mr Savage said he supported proportional representation, which was better than the proposal 111 the Bill 01 the present system. He would however, prefer the present system to the proposal in the Bill. Mr McCombs said he was opposed to 80 per cent, of the Bill. Mr Armstrong said a Bill which mixed voting systems, such as this one did, would never satisfy the people ot a democratic country. Mr Monteith characterised the Bill as a two-up trick, played with a twoheaded penny. Mr Langstone opposed the Bill, because it sought to apply two systems of voting to one country. Mr Wilford said the Liberal Party believed nothing was so necessary as electoral, reform, and they believed m proportional representation, with the maintenance of the country quota. _ It the Bill contained what the Bill which was brought down last session contained he would support it, believing that it would provide the thin end of the wedge. . 1 Mr Mclveen was speaking against the Bill at the 5.30 p.m. adjournment and us the debate w-as not concludec when the House adjourned, the motion to introduce the Bill was not put by the Speaker.