Labour Demands 26 S.I. Seats

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30822, 6 August 1965, Page 3

Labour Demands 26 S.I. Seats

• GVcw Zealand Press Association) • WELLINGTON, August 5. : Parliament was told tonight that the Electoral • Amendment Bill would not be given a second reading • until it provided for 26 South Island members. I The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition (Mr Watt) moved 1 an amendment “that this House will give a second reading to j this bill when provision has been made for the number of South : Island members to be increased to 26.” The bill increases the South Island seats from 24 to 25. Before it can become law the bill must be supported by 60 I members. The Government strength is 45.

Sir Eruera Tirikatene (Opp., Southern Maori) later moved a second reading of the bill when provision was made for the number of Maori seats to be increased to five. The adjourned debate will be resumed next Wednesday.

The Under-Secretary for Finance (Mr Muldoon) said that given good-quality members from the South Island, Jt did not matter whether their number was stabilised at 25 or 26. Until there was a common roll for Maori and European electors, the traditional number of four Maori constituencies, no more, no fewer, should be retained. Mr M. Rata (Opp., Northern Maori) said separate Maori seats were a useful and valuable form of Parliamentary representation for the race. "I concede tue need for full integration, but many other factors must first be considered.” Mr Rata said the Maori race was making full use of its members of Parliament. Its need was for more Maori members. . The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake): Did you mention that at the last election? .’ Mr Rata: Yes—many times. • Mr Holyoake: Is it in your policy? Why did not the member for Southern Maori mention it years ago? Rolls Compared - Mr J. B. Gordon (Govt., Clutha) said that only a few years ago, the member for Southern Maori represented only 2000 people. • In the 1963 election, a Maori Seat was chosen by as few as i 1.678 voters. The smallest European seat, in point of the dumber of electors, had 14.228. which was 400 votes! more than the largest Maori I seat. • The only way to judge representation, said Mr Gordon, was by actual voters not by gross population. A Maori was not confined! to the Maori seats. He could; stand for any of the 76 Euro-1 pean ones. Mr J. Mathison (Opp.,i Avon): Not if he is more than! a half-cast. Mr Gordon: Maoris stood! for two European seats, Wanganui and Petone, at the last General Election. As 1 was saying, the Maori is in a privileged position. Maori Interests Mr Gordon said that the Opposition would be wise to accept the bill. It wanted two extra seats—but if the bill were defeated, it would receive none. Mr P. A. Amos (Opp., Manurewa) said the Opposition felt that if the South Island received an extra seat, it would be an urban! one. If, on the other hand, two seats were given, one W'ould be rural, and the rearrangement would bring about a substantial decline in the areas of some electorates. On Mr Muldoon’s speech, he said: “He seemed to suggest that there should be some sort of special representation for Maoris, in that they could be allowed to speak and vote only on matters affecting Maoris.” This caused an uproar among Government members. “We believe that Maoris are entiled to citizenship in the same way as Europeans,” Mr Amos continued. Mr D. J. Riddiford (Govt.. 1 Wellington Central) said Maori representation was I •Very special” and had been | established to ensure there I would always be Maori members representing Maori iri-i terests.

■| “There are no Scotsmen in the House representing specifically Scottish interests and no Chinese representing specifically Chinese interests.” Mr N. E. Kirk (Opp., Lyttelton): There are businessmen representing business interests, though. Mr Riddiford: We are here to represent the whole of our electorates, including those people who may not have [voted for us. Effect Of Census Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Opp., Christchurch Central) said he had been astounded at the attitude adopted by South Island members of the Government. “Surely they know the position. South Island electorates would be far more manageable if there were 26 of them and not 25.” ! The National Party’s argument that it had a mandate to set the figure at 25 he believed was “fallacious.” Sir Basil Arthur (Opp., Timaru) said the granting of one extra seat to the South Island would be of no value to the country by the time of next year’s census. Population increases in the next year or two would cancel out the value of the extra seat. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Opp., New Lynn) said that the situation as outlined by Government members seemed confused. The impression had been given that the South Island would gain a member while the total representation !in Parliament would remain !at 80. This was quite false. “We have been told that if we pass the bill, the ratios will be preserved,” Mr Mason said. “There is nothing courageous about that. It is said that the purpose of the bill is to ‘bring the North and South Islands into line.’ They are strictly in line now.” Country Quota ! Mr Mason said that the essence of the bill related to the size of electorates in the South Island, and the degree in which this permitted personal relationship between members and their constituents. The Opposition wanted 26 seats because this was the smallest number of seats which could give a reasonable personal relationship between member and constituents.

Mr W. A. Sheat (Govt., Egmont): Do you suggest that members should live in their electorates? Mr Mason said that once the Westland seat terminated at the Grey river. Now it went up to the Buller. SimiI larly, Marlborough had pushed down and expanded. Mr Sheat: How does the member feel about the reestablishment of the country quota? Mr Mason: It is not before us at the moment. The Honourable member is not going to distract me from the weaknesses of the present proposal. The Minister of Railways (Mr McAlpine) congratulated Mr Mason on his comment: “Let us adopt the minimum changes that is useful.” “These are wise words,” Mr McAlpine said. “We are seeking to stabilise South Island representation so that the time will not come when we could not find 17 South Island members in order to put one on each of our standing committees.”

Growth Compared

Mr McAlpine said that the Labour Party’s mention or 26 South Island seats was mentioned in Opposition policy after the Government’s reference to 25 seats had been publicised. Mr J. G. Edwards (Opp., Napier): It was written before that. Mr McAlpine: And some of us wondered whether the Labour Party would go one better —and that is what they did. Opposition voices: That is not correct. Mr McAlpine said the Opposition was trying to divert the course of the debate by asking for two more Maori seats. Why did the Opposition members on the Statutes Revision Committee make no mention of Maori seats? Why, during the election campaign, did the Opposition not say the matter of Maori representation would be raised? If there were two extra seats in the South Island, Mr McAlpine said, the North would get six. The growth rate in the South was 2 per cent a year, as against 2.4 per cent in the North. On a North Island population of 1,854,579 that would be an increase of 44,496 in a year, as against a South Island increase of only 15,710. The South Island would get one seat, and the North Island three more. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) said the Opposition had the power to block the bill. If they did this, they would deprive the South Island of an extra seat.