THE LODGER VOTE

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 151, 27 June 1936, Page 19

THE LODGER VOTE

CONTENTIOUS BILL.

GOVERNMENT PERSISTS.

NATIONALISTS DIVIDED. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, June 15. It is cloub-tful if Mr. Spoqner, ,who is mainly responsible for.: the clause in the Franchise Bill eliminating, the "lodger yote," lias yet realised either the. real ground for. objecting, to thq bill or the reasons for tjic strong opposition that it has aroused. So far Mack as March 31 the "Daily Telegraph" adjured the Minister hot to "fiddle with the'municipal franchise," and warned him that success in carrying such a scheme "will earn for him and the Ministry, of which he is a member, nothing but suspicion." The "Telegraph." considers -. that the withdrawal of any form of franchise once granted must be condemned by all who have at heart, the genuine ideals .of democracy. It reminds us that householders and shopkeepers are not the only people who contribute to the city's revenue. Every sixpennyworth of butcher's meat, and every pound of sugar which goes into the suburban kitchen, }kis paid tpll to the town clerk. Moreover the health and cleanliness of the city, the safety of its r.oatls and streets and the upkeep of its parks,, are the concern of eyery responsible adult resident in it," and he or; she ■ has the right to a voice in the election ,of its administrators. No doubt these arguments carry with them a wide appeal and their influence, has been clearly reflected in the activity of public opinion on this matter both inside and outside Parliament.

While the bill was going through the Lower House, it was adversely criticised by one of- our leading authorities on Such questions, Professor P. A. Bland, who holds the chair of public administration at the University. Professor Bland, who is a stroiig supporter of democratic principles and a sworn enemy of bureaucracy, maintained that the bill struck at the very roots of democratic government, and that it would tend to deprive the average citiztn, of. the valuable training for legislative - ■■and-'" administrative' purposes lntherta supplied' ,by' local elected on a demoncratic basis. No Mandate Given. Professor Bland also pointed out that the electors had not given the Government any mandate to make such a radical change, and Mr. Spooncr replied next day that he regarded the repeated decision of the United Australian party, at its annual conventions, against the lodger vote, as sufficient mandate for liis . purpose. Mr. Spooner apparently "did; not realise that by this reply he admitted that his purpose is purely partizan and therefore limited in its scope and intention; and Professor Bland declined to grant the bill his approval simply because the U.A.P. would like it to become law.

Among other caustic comments, he asked why the lodger franchise should be singled out as the cause of all the .defects on,,.thev system of lo.cal government/ wjjifeh tSjjpr. Spooner so condemns. *VThe i Council had an unenviable reputation long before lodgers were allowed to vote, and some of..our suburban epuncils were notorious before adult.: : 'fralichise was introduced. But just as one does not wish to abolish Parliamentary Government because regrettable scenes occasionally occur, so we should judge local government by the oonscientious voluntary service daily being rendered by hundreds of aldermen." No doubt the professor had much the better of this spirited exchange of views, and Mr. Spooner did not strengthen his position by his efforts to treat the whole question as a matter to be decided by the Government alone, with the weight of its Parliamentary majority.

The result of all this criticism was that when the Local Government Amendment Bill, 'embodying the abolition of the lodger vote, reached its second reading in tho Upper House, the Government narrowly escaped a disastrous defeat. For the first time' for many years a Minister cast his vote on a party measure against his colleagues, and Mr. Kyan, who took this bold step, was supported by no less than six other Nationalist members. Mr. Ryan, who is an Assistant Minister, objected to ,"this attepipt to disfranchise 500,000 because It is unnecessary, 'irnjust and dangerous, and because the government has received no mandate that-cap be interpreted in these terms." jMtv.Mitchell, K.C., another U.A.P. man, °m{>ves '.'""that the bill be read upon a date six months hence." He reminded the House that two years ago Parliament rejected a similar attempt to restrict adult franchise in local government elections, tha^, nothing had happened sincei' 'to Change political conditions; . could not i wijh/-aiiyt credit to,itself reverse its decision -:now.SMr. Manfred (U.A.P.) assured 'the? 'House ithatfraf the bill were sub- : mitted to the people by referendum it would be thrown out by a large majority as unwarranted and unnecessary. Amendment Narrowly Defeated. When the division was taken on the amendment seven Nationalists—Mr. Ryan, Mr. Mitchell, Sir Henry Braddon, and Messrs. Sommerled, Robson, Wragge and Manfred—crossed the floor and voted against the Government. Of course, the Government Whips were active, but with all their efforts they could beat up only 26 votes against 23, a bare majority of three. The amendment was thus lost, and when the second reading was formally moved Sir Henry Braddon, Mr. Robson and Mr. Sommerled (who was Director of Publicity for Mr. -th#last election) walked out Or the House. The secon'd reading was thus carried by '20;-to 20, .-Jtiiut small a majority, after the Bill .(had '.'been announced as a party measure, was almost as discreditable as a defeat, and it supplied an adequate the disapproval •aroused •! in as well as outside and inopportune proposal.

Naturally the defection of so many Nationalists in a critical division was #;soitrce|: satisfaction to the became a subject for 'ifi- the Lower House. Mr. Weaver, no doubt glad of the chance to ask.p awkward question, inquired whether the Acting-Premier considered it "compatible with the customary forms of Cabinet administration" for a Minister to vote as Mr. Ryan had done, in opposition to his colleagues. Mr. Bruxner made answer that the course which Mr. Ryan had taken had been unusual; but that the Government had never yet held that, if a mall's conscience Lgp, directwl, hlmjie. was to. be._ denied hi* | right to .X'ote-jiL-the.- manner. w£{ch he v public interest: Therefore Mr! Ryan" was perfectly " free to vote as he did.