WHO ARE THE DEMOCRATS?

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 214, 6 September 1912, Page 7

WHO ARE THE DEMOCRATS?

IONG PARLIAMENTARY ARGUMENT. . PLURAL VOTES IX LABOUR . , DISTRICTS. ' Telegraph.- -mrlinmentnry Reporter.) WELLINGTON", Thursday. The dor-'Tnriit of the abolition of i~l votine system for the one &" pl To "V in connection with and Iwnl govcniment crop|iod m ,h- aftornooii in connivtion with I Mokau Harbour Hoard Empowrring ffn Zi wm at Mich great , Vh as to indicate ihet Lhe Opposiion took keen delight in discovering tZ Reformer were advocating an allioedlT reactionary proposal. "iSi member fur fhristchurch -South. Mr Ell oppo:""l I In- plural voting l i-e'in the bill on democratic grounii-<. iC and 'qua. opportunity for all and <'q» al opportunity for all. K. reform opposed from the f.ovVicncliP* hv the inpml>er for ffUTiW ih.l the pcepl. ; ho h'»d to pay the larger part of the liens should luvp the larger say: otherihe owners of quarter-acre sections ™ld outvote she larger landowners. Some jibing criticism was thrown at (he Minifitonnl supporters by the memII for InveitMi-gill, wiio declared that I, division li>U would show to the country who were the true demo.-rais. This issue, he said, was one of the questions that wae going to be brought before the country to show who were jit democrats. in the discussion that ensued Mr. y ou a back bencher in the tiovernmi "ranks, intimated that he was p, jnl . to support the amendment. His Ltion was likewise endorsed by another member of the party, Mr. Bradney, a3 4 matter of principle. One of the new reauits. however, the member for Kaipara, declared thai, a* the principle was liable to extension to counties, he urouM oppose the reform for all he was worth. As for it being democratic, he did not see whore that came in. AN AWKWARD REMINDER. He member for Pat no. caused a laugh »t the expense of the Opposition by faying attention to the fact that the jkdeenzie Government lia-d brought fcnni a Local Government Bill, providing for plural voting in elections. He &»nred one man one vote for social conditions, hut not on the raising of a loan. Jfr. Ell sought to explain that the Coherence of Local Bodies Lad opposed (jIV interference with the rating. Mr. Wilford said he could not see .anything against the proposal. It had worked well in Wellington—why not in the country? The liirge landowner obtained the larprer proportion of benefit. Jjftv should ho not pay in proportion? I Subsequently the provisions in the foal Government Bill were explained by Mr. Hanan. who said it- was a case <»"f majority rule with Cabinet. The present Minis-try ware likewise divided on some subjprtK. "Meanwhile the member in charge of the bill sat tight, despite all Mr. Kli'a efforts to ascertain his views on tho subject. How did he stand in rega rd to the small cockatoos or the big landowners? Where did the Prime MlmiU'i- stand on this question? esked Mr. Ell. He had been talking about every imin in the community being given equal opportunity. I HUMOrr.S OF A STONEWALL. The proceedings were obviously of the time-misting variety. 'The hon. member who has moved tie amendment talks like a fool," remarked tlif* member for Ed"ii. Loud .laughter 'followed, ivnd Mr. Laurenson immediately called the Chairman's attfntion. The Chairman: If the hon. member said the member for Christehiireh South talked like a fool, he must withdraw. Mr. Bollard: 1 withdraw, but what I meant to say was he talks like a foolish person. (Laughter.) Together with several other members of the party, he urged the falher of the bill to sit tight, and they would sec him through. Die principle underlying the amendment, urged the member for VVajtemata, Mi entirely vicious, for a man with practically no stiuid in the country would be able to connmit a. man who 4ad a considerable property. When Parliament has adopted the ■one man one vote in connection with its elections, declared .Mr. no man could surely rpfufii? tlmt principle to local bodies. Woihi was cited by the member for iVVaitaki, also a .Ministerial supporter, in opposing the amendment. What would have happened there? Was it not the owner of the property who paid the »nt? ii. i 'That is ii most remarkable statement," dcokrrd a member opposite (Mr. Daveyi. Surelj it was the rentpiyenrlio paid the rents. . Mr. Smith: And who pay a it when it is not occupied ? Mr. Dawy: Nobody. At 9 o'ciiick, a-.'t-r ri\e lour, - discussion, the House cmiiip close to tlm division time. Mr. Russell mad.- an explanation that the plural voting proposals in his, Local (ioveniment Bill, introduced lin (]f. r w Jlackenzie regime, ■were placed there in deference to the ■ aeosion of the Local Iloclies Conference, which., considered the bill. it did not aecessaiily follow that Up had gone eats upon his personal views. The amendment was rejected by 35 *otes to 20. '