"LODGER VOTE."

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 126, 30 May 1934, Page 17

"LODGER VOTE."

IN CIVIC ELECTION. ABOLITION PROPOSED IN f SYDNEY. STRONG OPPOSITION. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, May 23. Last night a bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly which is likely to prove one of the most contentious measures of the session. It proposes to amend the Sydney Corporation Act in several important particulars. It postpones once more the city elections — which had been fixed for a date not later than June 30 —so that they may synchronise with other municipal and shire elections early in December. It substitutes for the present electoral qualification in the city—"the local Government franchise which existed before 1927." This means that the "lodger vote" is eliminated, and the franchise will bo restricted to "owners, rate-paying lessees, occupiers and returned soldiers and sailors."

Tlic Lord Mayor is still to be elccted, not by the ratepayers, but by tlie aldermen—voting, in case of a, contested election, being conducted by secret ballot on the preferential system. An important clause provides that the city accounts shall be audited by the Auditor-General and that the council's borrowing power shall be controlled by giving ratepayers the right to demand a poll on any proposal to raise moneys by loan for specific purposes. The franchise will not be modified 111 shires and municipalities outside the city except by increasing the residential qualification of an occupier from six to twelve months. "Misrepresentation." By far the most important feature of the bill is the proposal to abolish the "lodger vote," and no doubt it will give rise ta a vehement controversy. So far back as 10 years ago an attempt was made to get rid of the "lodger vote," on the ground that—to quote Sir Arthur Cocks, one of the leaders of our municipal Reform movement —it was "producing scandalous misrepresentation of the city's interests, the degradation of its prestige and the elimination of its dignity." The Fuller Government, which was then in power, published statistics showing that about 14,000 persons were enrolled under the lodger qualification who had no responsibility, whatever as tenants or ratepayers; and some of these "are not even citizens, as the declaration required of them is as loose as their electoral description." It was alleged that, at publichouscs with a minimum.' of board accommodation, "platoons of lodgers have been enrolled as city voters." In some cases, "where a father or mother is registered as occupier, the other parent and members of the family have been enrolled as lodgers," No doubt the abuses complained of in 1924 have maintained themselves to the present day, and the "Sydney Morning Ilerald" had good ground for its assertion that "in no other great city in the Empire is such an abuse tolerated." The proposal to return to the franchise laid down by the amending bill of 1924 —which fixed the rental qualification at £5 a year (it is £10 in Melbourne) — seems to make fair provision for all reasonable requirements, even in so democratic a country as this. Rights of the Worker. However, those who desire to sec democratic principles pushed to their extreme logical conclusion can bo depended upon to oppose the bill. The "Labour Daily" has denounced the project as a surrender to the reactionary forces which,' it asserts, arc striving to confiscate the rights of the worker— though it is by no means ccrtain that the abolition of the "lodger vote" would not affect aristocratic ascendancy in Darlinghurst and Potts Point quite as much as it would weaken the democratic voto „in Newtown or Balmain. But the Langites can depend upon a good deal of support in the House from U.A.P. members who are dubious about the effect of this move upon public opinion, and also in the City Council, where the Lord Mayor and several of the aldermen have expressed their disapproval of the withdrawal of any franchise once granted to the people —a point on which they can claim the support of Mr. Brunner himself. Examples of its Working. But generally speaking, our politicians and public men are agreed that it is dangerous to entrust the destinies of a great city so largely to the care of representatives of people who may bo "here today and gone to-morrow." A few days ago Mr. It. T. Courtenay, who has admittedly had long experience of political and municipal affair's here,' wrote to the "Sydney Morning Herald" giving illustrations of some of. the anomalies produced by the "lodger vote" under the present system. In Abercrombie Street, when he was an alderman, the owner of one terrace had one vote, but there were eight occupiers and over 50 more or loss temporary lodgers all with a vote apiece. In .the Phillip ward, which Mr. Courtenay represented —a mixed business and residential district—Anthony Hordern and Sons had one vote for their immense property running from George Street to Pitt Street. But in the People's Palace (opposite Hordern's in Pitt Street) there were 58 lodgers, and in tw osmall residentials opposite Hordern's in Goulburn Street there were 42 lodgers—in all 100 voters from properties not paying onetenth of the rates paid by Hordern's— and nearly all of them were "birds of passage."

The moral is plain enough, and no doubt Parliament will apply it.