PREFERENTIAL VOTING

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 256, 28 July 1927, Page 10

PREFERENTIAL VOTING

PRIVATE MEMBER’S BILL LICENSING ASPECT . The merits of preferential voting weie discussed, chiefly by Labour members, in the, House of Representatives last night,' when Mr. J, McCombs (Lyttelton) moved the second reading of his Preferential Voting Bill. Mr. McCombs said that the Bill re-< presented the' considered opinion of the New Zealand Labour Party on the subject. The only way to be sure of getting majority rule was to have the whole of the people represented—the nation in miniature. Dealing with the licensing issue, Mr. McCombs said the net result- of the Bill would be to i turn the three issue ballot paper into a two issue ballot paper, not by the will of Parliament, but by the will of . the people after they had voted. The. -Bill would secure absolute majority rule. ■ The election of members of Parliament was not included in the provisions •of the Bill'. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne).: Why is that issue excluded ? Mr. McCombs replied that, that would be dealt with by proportional representation. The Bill was supported by Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington. Central), who said there was no reason why those electors who favoured . State Control.. of the liquor traffic should not- have the opportunity of recording their votes thereon. He did not anticipate that State Control would be carried, but its advo--cates would have the chance of having their view put . before the electors, and -if the issue were'at the bottom of the voting, then the final result would be between continuance and no-license, a two issue ballot paper. . Mr, Lysnar said the Bill was an old, . hardy annual, which had been resuscitated under a new cloak. Tho system, -had been tried and found wanting in' Australia and England. First past the ■ post was the best, system, and. had stood the test of time., .' Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) claimed that if the licensing question-were left .to the present House To’decide the probable result wculd be its .’total nbcJFion. The Bill was drafted" on. sound democratic lines, and he hoped the Government would "adopt it, "arid allow the" licensing issue to.be "jsettled under it,..--. Mf.-'H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch South) maintained .that, it-was not-pos-sible to give effect to the will of the je pie un'ess tne'- adopted the system embodied in the Bill. . Other Labour members spoke strongly in favour of the Bill, t Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) said the question of preferential voting .did not appear to appeal to the Labour —Party- except in regard to licensing polls. The Bill would not have been introduced by the member for Lyttelton if he had not been particularly interested in the liquor question. It must have been discouraging . to . the hon. member to se<* that his Bill was received, with a strong silence bv-the Government, . - ; .. Af 10.10 p.m. a division was taken., and the second reading of the Bill was lost by 44 to 20 Division List. The division list'was as follows:— 1 Ayes (20) :—Armstrong,' "Bartram, Bellringer, Forbes, Fraser, H. Holland., H. E. Holland (Buller), Hom, Jordan, J A. -Lee, McCombs; McKeen, H. G. R. Mason. Parry, Ransom, F. J. Roll’estqii. Savage, Sullivan. Veitch, Young. Noes (44): — Anderson, Bell, Bitcheuer, Bollard, Buddo, Coates, Dickie. I. S. Dickson, Eliott, Field, Forsyth, Girling, Glenn, A. Hamilton, J. R. Hamilton, Harris. Hawken, Henare, Hockly, Hudson, Hunter, D. Jones, W. Jones, Linklater, Luke, Lysnar, McLennan, McLeod, Macmillan, _J. . Mason, Nash, Nosworthy. Pomare,' Reid, Rhodes, J. C. Rolleston, Samuel, Smith, - Sykes, Waite, Walter, Wilford, Williams, Wright. The House rose at 10.20 p.m.

A TUNNEL CONTRACT CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. For the fourth time since 1923 William. Forrest, contractor, of Auckland,' is petitioning Parliament for compensation in respect of losses sustained in connection with the Okahukura tunnel contract; In his latest petition, presented to the House, yesterday by Mr. A. M. Samuel, lie states that he undertook the construction of the tunnel for £96,000 and successfully carried on till February, 1916, when, owing to. adverse war conditions, he was compelled to surrender his contract to the Public Works Department. He then, with the approval of the Department, entered into an ■ agreement with a syndicate whereby, on completion of the contract and compliance with certain conditions, he was to receive back his working plant and a share of the profits, if any. ‘ Later the syndicate were forced to surrender the contract to. the Department, the Government ( making equitable cash payments to the ’ syndicate. Petitioner went to England, and after 4| years’ service with the British Army, was discharged medically unfit and was awarded a • disability pension. He claims that the plant, which cost . over £6090, would be worth over’ £ll,OOO to-day.lt became the property of the -Govenlment and petitioner, who lost a large sum of money, had to-sell-five houses, realising £3OOO, to liquidate, his liabilities. After petitioning the House in 1923 he was granted £lOO, which - he considered totally inadequate to meet his ■jse, but nothing was done in respect of Ins later petitions. lie says he . is now a ruined man, and he asks for fair ,and equitable, compensation.

Three days’ leave of absence has been granted to Sir Apirana Ngata (Eastern Maori) on account of '-urgent public