SINGLE CITY ELECTORATES

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 211, 4 September 1903, Page 3

SINGLE CITY ELECTORATES

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

SIR JOSEPH WARD ON THE SUBJECT.

(By Tclcfrapli.— Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELL!NGTON, Thursday.

Bir Joseph "Ward's bill for the abolition of the present system of triplex City electorates was up for its second reading last night, and an interesting discussion resulted. In moving the second reading, Sir Joseph Ward said it was a simple bill —(laughter)—of three clauses, and it practically explained itself. It affected only the four centres, and the other provisions were merely machinery clauses. The Government submitted the bill in consonance with what he believed #f? be the general desire of the House. The fact had been borne on members during the last two elections, which were very unsatisfactory, and did not meet the views of the country. The logical corollary to the '"one man one vote" system was "one man one electorate." The present state of was chaotic, which he proposed to show by an examination of the figures at the last election. In Auckland, 41,11!) votes were polled out of 45,345 possible votes, if every voter who went to the poll had exercised his full privilege. In Wellington the total votes were 42,305, out of a possible 47,----943; in Christehurch, 45,050, out of 50,----475 possible; and in Dunedin 35,750, out of 52,212 possible. Thus 28,871 exercisable votes were not used, of which 5229 came from Auckland. It was never contemplated that any party could elect a member to represent it by plumping, and thereby defeating a more popular candidate, iior was it ever contemplated that plumping would be carried out in the way it had been done. Individuality was merged by the fact that each member had continually to act and co-oper-ate with the wishes of his colleagues. In the large cities the candidates did not know where they were until the election was over, because they could not count on the unknown quantity of plumpers. The alternative was to make plumping illegal. That removed one difficulty, but left the other indefensible position, that a voter had three votes to east in the cities, while his country fellow electors had but one—a most undemocratic principle. Touching on the question of the quotas, Sir Joseph reminded the House that the total result of the nine days' stonewall on the Representation Bill of 1887 was that the four cities received one-fifth of a member more than was originally provided for, and under the circumstances such a result was not worth lighting for. On sentimental grounds, he did not think the cities would have any reasonable complaint if they had the same number of members as at present, divided into three electorates. It was intended to alter the districts for the licensing polls, and in Committee he would propose an amendment to secure the continuation of the present districts on local option polls. Mr Millar declared that, speaking from a personal point of view, he would support the bill, but on the broad principle he was opposed to it. He proceeded to make a strong speech against the measure. The original proposal for triple electorates was, he said, introduced because of the community of interest among citizens of each of the large towns. It was impoasible by any artificial line to say that a man represented only one part of the city. He'asked if any harm had so far resulted from the present system? Electors in the city had not three votes, because their votes, being cast for three men, had the value of one-third of a vote for each candidate they supported. There' were, he said; ten men in the House who did not represent a man, woman or child in the colony. They represented the quota. A Member: Who are they? Mr Millar: It would not be difficult to ascertain. Sir Joseph Ward: I should like to see such curiosities. Mr Millar continued that the only effect of the bill would be to destroy the Labour vote of the cities. He would not oppose the bill if the quota wer* made equal throughout the colony. Under the present system of adding 28 per cent, to the rural population, the borough of over 2000, with a population of 290,869, had twenty-five members, while on a strict population basis they were entitled to 29}. The rural districts, on a population basis, were entitled to 4G| members, while with the quota they received 51. Mr Davey (Christchurch city), congratulated the Government on bringing down the measure. The strongest argument against the bill waa that of community of interest, but in this connection he pointed out that there was as much community of interest between Auckland and Grey Lynn, Wellington and Newtown, Christchurch and Avon, as in the respective parts of the cities. He denied that the bill would destroy the Labour vote, saying that the voters would still be there, and in a majority would return their favoured candidates. Mr George Fowlds would take a medium course in connection with the bill. He opposed the bill as piecemeal legislation, but said that the' present condition of triple electorates was very unsatisfactory. The question of relieving the trouble was, however, another thing, and he believed that the bill was in the wrong direction. He advocated the grouping of electorates, in order to secure greater community of interest, without giving electors any more votes than they had at present. Th* system of proportional representation with provincial electorates and effective voting was what he desired to see carried into effect. The Hon. C. H. Mills continued the debate. He had every confidence in the bill The whole trend of the colony's legislation had been to equalise votes. The present system was unconstitutional, and he could not understand even City members supporting it. He opposed Mr Fowlds' suggestion to increase the size of the electorates, characterising any man as a political glutton who wished a larger electorate than one formerly represented by himself, 75 miles across. Mr Duttiie complained that there was no desire for the bill in the country generally, while many more important measures which were asked for all over the colony were not brought down. He strongly opposed the bill, and declared that there was no such thing as plumping on present day elections. It was entirely a faUaey to say that City members were not "independent of eaofc otner.

Mr Sidey (Caversham) supported the bill, and contended that the burden of proof rested, not with the advocates of the single electorates, but with those who wished to maintain the present excresence of the triple system. The community of interest had been raised, but it should be borne in mind that whenever meetings were held to discuss large matters in cities, the suburban members were also asked to assigt. Mr Bedford (Duncdin) argued that democratic principles were violated by the present, quota. He was not strongly opposed to single electorates, but would not vote for the bill unless the constituencies throughout the colony were formed on the same basis. Mr Bedford supported his colleague's assertion that the bill was a direct blow at the Labour party, because it would weaken their organisation. He opposed the making of plumping illegal, and declared himself in favour of provincial constituencies and proportional representation. Mr Ell (Christchurch City) was an uncompromising opponent of the triple electorate system. He referred to the plumping evil, and urged that if the bill were not passed the system should be made illegal. He also supported a reduction of the quota in country districts. Mr T. McKenzie (Waikouaiti) was in favour of the single electorate, declaring that the present system was about the crudest that could be possibly devised, being altogether antiquated. At 12.40 a.m. Mr Lethbridge movd the adjournment of the debate, which was defeated by 18 votes to 10. Mr Baume continued the debate. He declared that he had not heard one single argument advanced in favour of the bill. The Ministry wluch now introduced the bill had in the past consistently opposed the proposal. Mr John Ballance had said that his party was not likely to commit suicide by abolishing triple electorates after having seen how the system worked before. Mr Seddon was Premier of a Ministry which contained no City member, and was therefore willing to spill, the blood of the City members; he had spoken strongly against the quota, while now permitting its existence. That system was one of representation by mileage, not by population. Mr Baume remarked that Opposition members had spoken strongly against conspiracies of silence, but had contributed to such a conspiracy on the present measure. The city electors had one-third of a vote, while the country electors had a fraction over one vote each. That the City voters ltad no advantage over country electors in ■the matter of polling was proved by the election statistics, which .showed that the proportion of voles in town and country electorates was exactly the same. Iv large electorate.-* the people were more likely to get the best class of men than in small district*. In a city divided into three no man need hope to get elected who was not a strong party man or attached to some prominent political society. After .Mr Aitken had supported the present gyetem, Mr Taylor characterised the bill as a proposal introduced by a so-called Liberal Government. He strongly opposed the bill, and, speaking on the question of the quota, .said that country representatives should bo reduced, not incre-ascul. It seamed to him that the proposal was introduced because cities had returned men who were not pledged to the Government, lie could se« no other reason. Instead of seeing the .'City constituencies harrowed down, he would prefer to see them extended to the limits of the provinces, so that the holding of narrow parochial views might not be encouraged. Mr Taylor expressed the. belief that after hearing the arguments advanced again-st the bill, the Colonial Treasurer would allow it to die a natural death before the Committee stage came on. Messrs Witty and Luurenson supported the bill, and Mr Fisher opposed it. Sir Joseph Ward, replying, contended that, singlp el eft o rate? would not detrimentally affect the chances of Labour candidates. The bill had not been brought in as a sop to any particular party, but because there was a desire for it throughout the colony. The Government were unanimous in regard to it, and it had been introduced as an honest attempt to place the electoral laws on a better footing. The second reading waa carried by 48 votes to 5, and the House rose at 2.40 a.m. THE DIVISION LIST. For the Bill (49): Allen, E. G. Bennett, Bollard, Buddo, Carroll, Colvin, Davey, Duncan, Ell, Flatman, Fraser, A. L. I). Fmser, W. Hall, Hall-Jones, Hanan, Harding, Hardy, Ileke, Herriea, Houston, Jennings, Lang, Lavironson, La wry, Lethbridge, Lewis, Mander, Massev, McGowan, McKenzie, R.McLaughlan, McNab, Mills, O'Meara, Panita, Reid, Rhodes, Seddon, Sidey, Smith, Steward. Symes, Thomson, J. C. Ward, Wilford, Witheford, Witty, and Wood. Against the Bill (5): Baume, Fisher. Millar, Tanner, and Taylor. Pairs—For the Bill: Herdman, Barber, Russell, Field, Kirkbride, Graham, Vile, Alton and J. Remington. Against the Bill: Moss. Fowlds, Bedford, Hogg, Duthie, Aitken, Arnold, Buchanan, and Kidd.