PLURAL VOTING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 223, 20 September 1935, Page 3

PLURAL VOTING.

MUNICIPAL POLLS. DEMOCRAT LEADER'S OFFICE. "BRICKS AND COMMUNISM." (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. A strong protest against plural voting at municipal elections was made in the House of Representatives to-day by members of the Labour party in support of the Local Elections and Polls Amendment Bill, which was introduced by Mr. R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East). Mr. Semple said his bill contained only one clause, its object being to repeal section 13 of the Local Elections and Polls Act of 1920, which had reintroduced plural voting. The rights conferred upon certain sections of the community were not generally recognised until the last municipal election, when advantage was taken of the clause and certain persons voted as many as eight times for the Wellington Mayoralty. When the 1926 amendment was passed it went through the House with little explanation, it being merely stated that it was a machinery clause in respect to the voting of certain bodies. Twentyfive years previously plural voting had been abolished in New Zealand. A Government Member: Was the clause opposed? Mr. Semple: No. The clause went through without explanation. It looked innocent and passed through. He went on to explain how under the clause representatives of companies, firms and corporate bodies were allowed to vote on behalf of the owners of property. A man, for instance, might reside in the Hutt and yet be able to vote for the Mayor of Wellington. The present Wellington City Council was elected owing to this anomaly in the law. It was not right that bricks and mortar should be allowed the decision in a political contest. It was ridiculous to allow a person to have as many as eight votes. A Government Member: It is not on the voter's own behalf. Wellington Mayoralty. Mr. Semple said the mayoralty of Wellington was decided by bricks and mortar votes allied with the Communist vote. The mayoralty was won by 21,000 votes against 19,000. There were practically 3500 Communist votes cast for the Mavor.

A Voice: How do you know? Mr. Semple: They told the world they were doing it. They made 110 attack 011 ihe Mayor. He added that the Communists would be voting for the Tories at next election, a statement that brought forth much Government laughter. Mr. R. McKeen (Labour, Wellington South) said that the seriousness of the amendment was not noticed in 1920. He went further than Mr. Semple, stating that there were instances 011 record where an elector had voted as many as 15 times. Payers of Rates. Mr. J. A. Nash (Government, Palnierston) complained that all through the debate 110 consideration had been given to the people who paid rates. He knew of people who had three and four votes at the municipal election. Labour Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Nash pointed out that such votes were for other people. The same applied to the Hospital Board. He had had a vote in the city and one in the country. A Voice: If you had had more you might have got in. Mr. Nash said there should surely he consideration for the people who paid the rates. It had been suggested that the Government should take up the bill. Why not go the whole hog and allow the whole of the electors of a city to cast their votes for one big electorate? Why have the ward system for general elections? People living in cities wore disfranchised for not being allowed to vote for the whole city. If the Government did anything of the kind Labour would raise a line and cry.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Savage, said he had listened to the most remarkable statement. "If I had a thousand votes," he said, "it would not alter my reasoning a little bit." How were they to get wise government locally and nationally by plural voting? He agreed that bricks and mortar played a large part in municipal contests. Owning property was no qualification for intelligent voting. All a man's wisdom could be expressed in one vote. He prodieted that the law would be altered before long. Mr. Nash: How soon? Mr. Savage: When the Government leaves the Treasury Benches at the end of the present year. There was ironical laughter from the Government benches at this remark. Voting at Loan Polls. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Government, Riccarton) said he wondered whether the sponsors of the bill desired that the property qualification should be cut out of loan polls. Labour Voices: It was not suggested.

Mr. Kyle said that some time ago Christchurch elected certain councillors whose only qualification to stand was the fact that they occupied offices in the Labour hall. That hall produced 30 or 40 votes—the very thing that Labour was now protesting against. Labour Members: Not enough. Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino) said intelligence could not be measured by the length of a purse;. If so, some working people working foi nuts would not pet the shells. A system that permitted of plural voting was pernicious. Ratepayers were placed 011 the rolls automatically, while householders had to place themselves 011 the rolls or be disfranchised, and they were often neglectful of their duty. Batches of Votes. Mr. W. .T. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) said that public trustees as trustees for estates had whole batches of votes, but who was to say how they were exercised? As the ballot was secret, a trustee could vote according to his own personal opinions, and not according to instructions if any were fc'ven to him. Mr. A. J. Stall worthy (Independent, Eden) said the bill touched only one of the anomalies in local elections. Plural voting was altogether against the principle "of the Constitution as it was known. All persons paid rates directly or indirectly, and he was firmly of the opinion that voting should be 011 the basis of manhood suffrage. The Government was at fault in so long delaying the overhaul of the local body system. In Auckland, with a population of 200,000, there were 450 members of local bodies, and the result was confusion worse confounded with overlapping overtaxing and a good deal of unnecessary conflict on questions affecting the wellbeing of the community. The bill was re?\d % fir§t_l£Tie. _