ABOUT PETITIONS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 898, 18 August 1910, Page 4

ABOUT PETITIONS.

— » : " SLIPSHOD' METHODS CONDEMNED. Informalities in connection with petitions presented to the Public Petitions Committee were the subject of comment in the Legislative Council yesterday atteinoon, when the-Hon. J. E. Jeukinson moved that.certain.petitions in regard to the abolition of ,the .bookmaker and. .tha totalisator be rejected because of certain informalities. In some cases/ said Mr. 'Jeukinson, eight or ten names were signed by the one' person, and iu'uthei cases signatures were pasted on. This was tha form in which petitions had been received before, and it was difficult to know ln.v to act to prevent breaches of tne Standing Orders. In cases where one sheet'ot paper was pasted on to another, as was done in a number of cases, it was difficult for the. Committee to say whether the names were got in support of that particular petition or not. In one case a clergyman had stated that ho had himself transferred certain nunics from a sheet of paper on to the petition, which was highly improper. • It the Council had printed forms prepared, bearing the regulations printed on the back, he 1 bought they would Bud an improvement. These regulations would enable the public to see at once what was rignt. and what was wrong. Ho also thought petitions might be submitted to the clerk of Parliament, who would see that they were in the proper form before handing them on. The Council should •certainly do something to deal with the slipshod way in which petitions were got up at present. ,„ . ~ , , The Hon. G. Jones (Oamaru) thought that if persons getting up these petitions would consult the member- for the district, who would have the Standing Orders by him, there would be no truubte. ■ The Hon. W. W. M'Cardle (Auckland) thought the resolutions of public meetings should be taken in place of these petitions. A large number of peoplo who signed petitions were undoubtedly anxious to have the reform mentioned in .the petitions carried out, but many also signed not caring anything about the reform. The Hon. J. Rigg (Wellington) thought the Standing Orders were quite sufficient. He did not think tho suggestion of printed forms was practicable. The proper way to deal with an irregular petition was to reject it.' This would bring the public into line, and the matter would adjust itself. > The Hon. C. M. Luke (Wellington). did not agree with. the suggestion that the people should be deprived of a right to petition Parliament. They should rather instruct tho people so as to have those petitions lodged in order. . , The Attorney-General said there was no doubt that the practice of filling in petitions had fallen into looseness, almost beyond description. He had had petitions sent to him signed "for" and "against" bv the same people, to the extent of To per cent, of the signatures. If they rejected a' number of these petitions,' as suggested by Mr. Kii.tr,. he thought the trouble: would lie cured. " The proposed rejections were agreed to.