WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25.

Clutha Leader, Volume XVII, Issue 833, 4 July 1890, Page 3

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25.

/ ;_ In*the Souse of Representatives — ... In-reply to questions it was statojd—, „ That the reason why no lands had been ■ .-: reserved for mining purposes within ■ -the area open for'selection by the Midt latid Railway Company wasthat all the .reports :\were hot yet in.—That the ; Government were:very desirous of \encouraging rifle clubs/ but it was thought \ desirable that there should be some ' head."-".-As to the manner in which the dubscould be officered the Government oould not say till details of the organisa tion o£ the Volunteer force were, before the House.—That the Government hoped to bring in a bill to amend the Employers' Liability Act and Seamen's Act this session. —That the Government proposed asking for legislative authority to deal with an amendment to the Grown Land Act, 1887:, for the prevention of duinmyistn and forbidding -speculative acquisition of Crown lands so that it shall, pass only into the possession of actual settlers or occupiers. Hon. G. F. Richardson moved the _ second reading of the Shdep Bill, explaining that was a consolidation of all the Sheep Acts passed si uco 1878. He did not consider it necessary to go through the bill-in detail at present, as if it passed its second reading it would be referred to the Stock Committee. — Agreed"to, and the bill referred to the Stock Committee. Hon. G. F. Richardson moved the second reading of the Cattle Bill, and 1 said its necessity had arisen owing to the stato of the existing law with respeck to diseased cattle. The bill would also provide for the registration of cattla It was of a technical character and should also be referred to the „ Stock Committee. —Agreed to. REGISTRATION OP ELECTORS. Hod. T. W. Hislop moved the second reading of the Registration of Electors Bill, explaining that it was practically the same bill as that introduced last session, and provided chiefly for the issue .of electoral right for which voters had to renew their application every three years. One innovation in the hill was that provision was made for the registration of seamen. The Government had had under consideration whether special representation should be given to seamen, and when in in committee he should ask for direction whether such special representation should be granted or whether the other mode should be adopted. Mr J. Ballance said no doubt some improvements had been made in the bill since last session especially as the shilling fee had been struck out. He held, however, that the bill was no improvement on the existing" law, and would lead to considerable expense and inconvenience. The hon. gentleman had not shown that the present law, with some slight alterations was not practically sufficient for all purposes, nor had he shown that the bill was any improvement whatever. He failed to see, also, why the act of registration should be suspended for three monthso? the year, and he thought voters should be. entitled to register all the year round. On the question of representation of seaman, he asked why that class should have special representation more than any other class of persons, such as lawyers, knights of labor, and others. His opinion was that a member specially representing seamen would be a perfect nuisance in the House. No particular reason had been shown why the bill had been introduced, and if it was decided to bring it into force in the next election one half of the electors of the Colony would be disfranchised under it, as it would take €hree.years to understand the bill. ' Major Steward recognised the great pains Mr Hislop had taken in preparing the bill. He agreed with Mr Ballance that the present law with a few alterations was sufficient for present purposes. He held also that, if the bill .was brought into law at next election, a large number of people would be disf rairchised, as they would be under the impression that having already sent in their claims it was unnecessary to do so. If the bill was to be passed this session its operation should be postponed until people had sufficient time to be properly acquainted with its provision or at any rate till after next general election. ' "Mr Tanner said the two previous speakers had overlooked the fact that the House having passed the one man one vote principle it was absolutely necessary that this bill should be passed to give that principle effect. He saw no reason why the operation of the bill should be 1 postponed. One good eft-ct ..of the bill would be that it would sweep away all existing electoral rolls. Mr Smith said that in his district there were hundreds of bush men who .would never hear of this bill in time to vote, at next election. He hoped if the bill were passed a provision would be inserted postponing its operation till after the elections. Mr Fulton thought Mr Ballance should' know after all his experience that the rolls required purging, but great difficulty was found in purifying them. He knew from personal experience that during the, last general election there was. a cry from one end of Colony to the other .that some alteration was necessary in the registration of elecitors. He failed to see any force in the argument that; persons could not 'undestrand £he process of registration

under this bill, and held that at present it was perfectly impossible for the registration officer to. purge the. rolls.. Their desire should be to get registration done in the best possible way j -and with the least difficulty, as every! member was interested' in that being done. . r Mr Peacock. said the bill in its main features would' have his hearty supports, ,<as\ he thought there were few : members who would not admit that the present rolls were in a very deGcient,state. He referred to a casein. Auckland at last election in which 1500 circulars had been issued by one of the candidates, and no less than 350 were returned, .as .the persons named were not found, and he thought this' gave a very good idea of the manner in which the rolls could be stuffed by interested persons. There was no reason why the bill should not be passed this" session. .. Mr T. Mackenzie (Clutha) would support the bill as a measure of reform. Care should be taken, however, in passing the bill that electors in country districts would not be precluded from registration under it. Mr Fisher contended that if the bill became law it would prevent at least 2000 people being placed on the rolls in Wellington. It was most conservative in its tendency, and would disfanchiso large numbers of working men. The principle of registration in this bill was one which he hoped would never come into force in this Colony. Mr Reeves (St. Albans) protested against the extraordinary and ' ambiguous language used in several clauses in the bill. There was no doubt that under the present law candidates wei'e put to great expense, but no such drastic remedy was necessary as was provided by this bill. If the Govern- , ment saw that the registration officers did their duty there would be^ no necessity for a bill of this description. As to registration under the bill, there was no doubt more difficulty would be experienced in country districts than towns ; but the chief difficulty was to got people on the rolls at all. At least one-half of the people in Christchurch would be . disenfranchised by the bill, and he should oppose it at every stage. Mr Izard saw no necessity for the system of electoral rights introduced into this bill. The rolls could easily be purged without a provision of that kind. ' He also thought no particular class of men should have special representation. Mr Fish opposed the bill, and questioned whether Ministers themselves were aware of its nature. He thought little of the proposed amendment, because he considered it. was utterly impossible to hold the next elections under this bill. Mr Taylor also opposed the bill. Mr Bruce thanked the Government for introducing the bill, and should support the second reading. Mr Moss asked why they were asked to pass the bill now, seeing it would not be in operation for three or four years. Mr Saunders would support the second reading, but he should require to see it considerably amended in committee. He hoped the Government would adhere to their intention to carry the bill through. Dr Newman contended, that the present bill could never have been considered clause by clause, and he hoped it wonlrl be withdrawn. Mr J. M'Kenzie (Waihemo) also opposed the bill, although he thought the clause relating to seamen should be brought down in a separate bill. Mr Blake thought they were getting altogether too much representation, and that for one Parliament quite enough alterations had been made in the representation of the country. Mr Buchanan could not see his way to support the bill. Mr Allen would vote for the second reading of the measure, and thought special representation for seamen was a step in the right direction. Mr Duncan spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr Beetham would support the second reading, but reserved the; right to make several alterations in committee. Ho failed to see altogether how the bill could be called a conservative measure. • Mr Bryce said as the Government had announced their intention of not bringing this bill into operation for the next general election his interest in it had largely fallen off. As that was their intention, ho thought a bill passed in the first session of the new Parliament might be a much better one than if pp.sscd by the present House. Hon. Captain Russell failed to see the logic of the member for Waipa. If the bill was required, why not pass it now just as weli as in the now Parliament. He asserted that it was a general outcry after the last election from many members that the rolls had been stuffed in their district. As to the bill being a conservative one he asked, was it a conservative idea to purify the rolls. His opinion was that, if men did not take the trouble to register their votes they did not deserve to have a vote at all. He thought the House would do very : wrong if they did not pass the bill, as no single objection had been made to' its principle. . • Captain Fraser said the bill was : quite unnecessary. Hon. T. W. Hislop thought it was; doing i the intelligent people of this

Colony anything but justice to,assert that they could not understand! a lull which, had already been in force in Victoria for several years. The assertion that "the bill was a conservative one was merely raised by the opposite side of the House as a means of catching votes. To show the insincerity of -Mr Ballance,; he pointed out that the Government "of which that hon. gentleman was a member had actually prepared, a bill.-on similar lines to the present one modelled on the Victorian system. He asked therefore why the Government'should be referred to by Mr Ballanco as an anti-Democratic Government for introducing a bill to the same effect as the one brought in by the Stout-Vogel- Government, of which- Mr' Ballance was a member. After • replying to several objections raised to the'bill, he said he hoped, the House would agree to the second reading of a measure which received not only the approval- of the present Government, but of the Liberal Government which preceded it. The motion for the second reading was carried by .35 to 23.