EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7355, 6 July 1889, Page 6

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. REPRESENTATION BILL. Mr Hislop moved the second reading of the Representation Bill, saying he regretted very much that it had fallen to his lot to propose a measure of such great importance, and he wished that others more qualified than himself had had to undertake ics preparation." He hoped, however, members would approach the Bill without prejudice, and even if it should not become law this session, he felt sure it would before long. They had been told that such men as Mr Gladstone, Mr Bright, and other statesmen had been against the principle of this Bill, but they must remember that Sir Robert Feel at one time strongly opposed what he afterwards advocated, and the same might be said of Mr Gladstone. When they found that such men as Lord Sherbrook, one of the greatest men of the Liberal Party in England ; also Sir John Lubbock, Mr Fawcett, and Mr Leonard Courtney advocated proportionate representation, they might well come to the conclusion that there was something to be said in favor of it. They I had been told also that the present was ! not an opportune time for making a change of this sort, but he held that there was no time like the present for laying the foundation of our electoral system on right principles. After referring to what he considered the defects of the present system, he detailed some of the leading principles of the Bill. It provided that the country should be divided into four districts, and the number of members was assigned to each district according to the population. These districts are divided into subdivisions. It was also provided that nominations of candidates were to be sent to the Returning Officers of Division, and each candidate was to be nominated by ten electors. He pointed out to the members who were interrupting him that if the House was against the Bill there was behind the House the people of the colony, and he might say that when this system was first proposed there were very few to be found in favor of it, whereas now the number was largely increased. He referred to the proposal for taking the poll under this system, and combatted the opinion that seemed to prevail that the Bill was not easily understood. The Bill also provided that there should be one vote for one man and in this respect they had maintained the principle of last year in the measure. One thing was effected by the Bill and that was that whereas localities were affected ir did away with localities as a basis on which a choice of members could be made. Objection was made to the Bill that it was of too complicated a character, but those who objected were those who had not really studied the measure; there was no difficulty about the working of the system in places in which it was practised. Another objection made to the system was that it prevented young men from gaining a footing in the House, but he failed to see that that would result. He hoped hon. members would study the Bill carefully, and so supplement the remarks he had made on it. He felt sure that the system was workable, and would be a great improvement on our present system. Mr Ballance did not think the House approached the Bill with any undue amount of prejudice. It was entirely new

in character, and it behoved Mr Hislop to show that it applied to New Zealand. He wanted proof of the statement made by the Colonial Secretary that this Bill was growing in public favor. There was no proof whatever of that. The hon. gentleman condemned onr present system of election, but he had not shown one single argument to prove that his Bill was better. He mentioned the fact that he had had an election on the Hare system, not on his own account, In the recess. There were seventeen candidates, but tbe result was that the whole of the votes were given to three or four popular men—(Mr Hislop—They had addressed electors)— No, they had not delivered any addresses, and under Mr Hislop's scheme he defied any man to be able to address the electors. He (Mr Ballance) confessed he had been greatly enamoured of the Hare system after reading Hare's book, but he now felt it wonld take an education of fifty years to make an average man understand that system. If it were not a voter's business to understand the scheme how was it to work? Surely voters should be able to understand the qualities of the different candidates who were up for election. As for the argument of the hon. gentleman that he wanted toget rid of the pernicious feeling of localism that only clamored for roads and bridges, be thought there would be far greater evils under the Hare system. Referring to the contention that if the Hare system had been in force a number of eminent men now out of the House would be in it, he said that although he deplored the loss of those men he felt sure they would come back again to the House sooner or later with S^STtLv 1 * 0, "- He contended in one I he believed, was not ready for itTndr

would it be ready for the next hundred yean»,«and he strongly recommended the Government not to waste the time of the House any longer over it. Mr OCONOE said that the Colonial Secretary deserved the thanks of the House for the able speech he had made in introducing the Bill, but he regretted he had not brought in the Bill of last year. The change proposed was too sudden, but as to its not being easily understood he explained its effect to his constituents recently, and they thoroughly understood it. The great gain to electors in this system would be that better men would be elected to Parliament. Referring to Mr Ballance's remarks as to where the supporters of the Hare system in 1879 were, he might say that our barbarous system of election had driven them out of the House. Why Mr Ballance himself had been kept out of Parliament through it at the last election, and two of the leading men of the country had been defeated by our system. He thought it was absurd to say that under the present system of representation they were expressing the views of the people. Mr Reeves (St. Albans) thought that clause 5, limiting the House to seventy members was the most important one in the Bill. They had heard in the lobbies that the Government had no intention of passing the Bill as a whole, but that they intended to adhere firmly to the reduction of members. The Government had received great praise for this determination, and if they really meant to have reduced the House they would deserve that praise. He thought, however, that the present Premier was a great believer in large Parliaments, and he quoted from former speeches of that hon. gentleman in which he said he had always been in favor of a large House. That was in October, 18S4, only three years before the Premier had introduced a Bill providing for a smaller House, and alleging that he had always been in favor of a small House. He (Mr Reeves) therefore held that any determination on the part of the Government to reduce the number of members was not from a rooted conviction on the Premier's part, as he believed, that the hon. gentleman cared very little about it one way or other. Referring to the Bill before the House, he thought it was one of the worst drawn measures he had ever read, and he should like to know how a Bill of that kind was to be understood by the average voter. He objected to the Bill because the people of the colony had not had an opportunity of considering it, and they had no right to make such a material change in our electoral system without tne people being consulted. The last election was a keenly contested one, but there was no mention whatever of the Hare system from one end of the colony to the other. The Bill was also a leap in the dark, and although it had been debated both in England and America it had made no progress at all in those countries. He referred to the fact that the system was in force in Denmark and Chili, but contended that the conditions of those countries were altogether different from this colony. They had in power at present a Government that could not carry a single policy Bill without the aid of their opponents, and an Opposition that could not combine on any common ground of action, so that good government at present was almost impossible. He* held, however, that this state of things would be aggravated tenfold by the Hare system. After speaking at some length against the Colonial Secretary's Bill, he said he should vote against it because it was not asked for by the people of the colony, and also because they had had no experience of the working of the system in other countries. It would further leave the franchise in the hands of a few wealthy people, and would be unfair to the majority of candidates, because its working would be too cumbersome in character. Mr Vkrball thought if anybody read the Bill through they must become convinced that it would never do for the people of New Zealand. He himself had been elected in spite of the opposition of all the lawyers of the colony. Mr Fish was so convinced that this Bill was unsuited to the circumstances of the colony that he thought no more time should be wasted over it. He therefore moved that; the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Pkemier moved the adjournment of the debate till Tuesday, which was agreed to. OTAGO CENTRAL RAILWAY. Mr Hodgkinson resumed the debate on the Otago Central Railway Bill. Hβ considered the Bill meant practically to construct this railway out of loan. It waj admitted on all hands that the line would not pay for its construction, and he thought another loan would have to be raised for its completion. Mr Downie Stewart said the Government were entitled to the tHanks of the Otago members for the instalment they were getting of this railway. That railway had been before the colony for several years, and the colony had suffered great loss through the line not being completed. At present a large amount of money was lying idle, and when it was completed he hoped it would be a profitable line. Mr Moss had always been a supporter of this line, but he considered the Bill a most objectionable one. Why should this line be singled out from other lines in this manner ? The proposal took £15,000 a year from the consolidated revenue—from the pockets of the people. He hoped they would see a North combination to complete that railway. The door should not have been opened to this kind of thing, as he thought it was most reprehensible. He should vote against this Bill although he was not opposed to the construction of the railway. Mr Richardson moved the adjournment of the debate.

Agreed to, and the Hou3e rose at 10.30 p.m.