OPPOSITION LAUNCHES ATTACK ON ELECTORAL BILL

Dominion, Volume 39, Issue 27, 26 October 1945, Page 8

OPPOSITION LAUNCHES ATTACK ON ELECTORAL BILL

Demand For Test Of Public Opinion

Exceptional interest was taken in last night s proceedings in the House of Representatives, when the debate was continued on the introductory stages of the Electoral Amendment Bill, which provides for the abolition of the country quota and the division o f the country into electorates on t e basis of the adult population. , The public galleries were crowded for the early part pf the evening, and as each speaker resumed his seat after his 15 minute-speech, members on both sides of the House jumped to their feet anxious to catch the eye of the Speaker, Mr. Schramm, and be called upon to speak.

All the afternoon had been occupied in discussing the report on a petition dealing with the disposal of Auckland sewage, and immediately the House met after the tea adjournment the Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, obtained urgency for the first reading of the Bill and all the preliminary proceedings thereto, after this course had been challenged by the Opposi-

tion. 1 T ; ' Strong protests against the proposals in the Bill were made by members of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, stating that his party would fight the measure with all the virility it could command to preserve the rights of'the very foundation of the life, which was the family man. An amendment that consideration of the Bill be postponed till ' the Government’s proposals for altering the electoral lays had been submitted to a vote of the people by referendum specially taken for the purpose or at a general election was moved by Mr. Holland. He was followed by the Prime Minister, whose speech was' marked by frequent interjections. Mr. Fraser said that the Government held that wherever people lived their vote was attached to their humanity and not to their geographical position. With the application of the closure, the debate was brought to an end shortly before midnight. The amendment was lost by 34 votes to 40, and the voting was the same on the closure and other formal motions. The Bill was read a first time, and the House rose at 11.55 p.m. till 10.30 a.m. today, when an Imprest Supply Bill will be introduced.

Before the resumption of the introductory stages of the Electoral Amendment Bill when the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. after the tea adjournment, the Prime Minister, Mr. ERASER, sougnt urgency for the first reading of the Bill and all the preliminary proceedings thereto. There were calls of “why,” “I like that,” and “the gag already” from the Opposition benches. The urgency motion was forced to a vote and the division helis were set ringing. The motion was carried by 3(L votes to 30. ■ Mr. WEBB (N., Kaipara), who was ■speaking when the measure was first ’.before the House a week ago, then resumed his speech. He said that the Bill was one to remove ■ the country quota and to remove the advantage that the family man had and should have over one that had no family. The Bill had been aptly described as one changing the rules in the middle of the game. It was the sort of thing one would expect from a cheat and not a true sport. Mr. OSBORNE (L.. Onehunga) : The Tories of the past were cheats then. Mr. WEBB said that electorates should be based on population and not on voting strength. If the "abolition of the country quota were a plank in the Labour Party's platform then why was it not there in 1935 and in 1938— because the Labour Party needed the support of the farmers but now they had got that the Bill was introduced in ,i desperate attempt to retain the reins of office. The Government was more concerned about hanging on to office than observing a sportsman's code, of honour. No alteration should be made in the constitution without a mandate to do so. Another objection to .the Bill was . that it was a dishonourable attempt to change the personnel of the Representation Commissions. Mr. SPEAKER said that to apply the .word dishonourable to legislation was out of order. Mr. WEBB: Then I will substitute discreditable. V Mr. SPEAKER: That too is out of -i order. Mr. WEBB: Well I will substitute nothing. Mr. DOIDGE (N., Tauranga): Underline the blanks. Maori Representation. Mr. WEBB said (hat the Maoris were entitled to representation in the House but not greater representation than Europeans. (Opposition hear hears). Mr. WEBB said the member, for Southern Maori, was in the House with 741 votes. If any alteration were to be made it should apply to Maoris equally as to pakehas. The Bill had aroused the greatest storm of protest he had known for many years and it was justified. If the Government were sincere it wquitl get a mandate before attempting io bring in a Bill which had been introduced not because of abstract principles but to enable the Government to put off its inevitable doom. Mr. WILLIAMS (L„ Kaiapoi) said that naturally the Bill had created a storm of protest. There had been a privileged class in this country, and being depriyed of that privilege one would expect them to protest. He personally had a mandate, for at every country meeting in his electorate he had been asked his attitude toward the country quota and he had said that he would vote for the abolition of it. In 1881 the farming interests dominated the polities of this country, and realizing that in cotirSe of time ■ their privilege would be challenged ■ they’ had the country quota basis of ■■representation placed on the •Statute Book. What was being done was to remove that privilege. Was the Opposition prepared to extend the franchise to people of 16. 'Those people paid taxation and there was more justification for them having a vote than having 28 per .cent, added to the value of votes iu the country. Whole Country Stirred. Mr. HOLLAND. Leader of the Opposition. -aid that iio action any Government had taken had so stirred the people a.- tin- present legislation. He bad received a flood of telegrams from one end of the country to the other and Government members had also. Government members: No. Mr. HOLLAND eaid it was correct. The Minister of Finance had received telegrams. He knew that because be had received copies of them. “I have never spoken with a deeper sense of indignation limit I do now. Nothing has so threatened our democratic system as the introduction of this legislation. It is equivalent t<> a player stacking the cards to suit liims-elf.” (Government laughter.) No Government had taken an action more calculated to do injury. The Government was deliberately stabbing in the hack every person living in country districts. and they had never been so provoked as by the introduction of this measure. They recalled the passage of the Local Elections and Polls Amendment Act which robbed them of their rights.

They also remembered the attacks on the primary producers by the Government in connexion -with the 15 per cent, increase in the price of wool. The primary producers were not slow to remember these things when the knife was in their wounds. They were not unmindful ot injustice in connexion with the lump sum payments. Public opinion in this country-. in the towns, in the cities and in the country districts had never been so inflamed! (Government laughter.) The farmers felt that ordinary fairness and common justice bad been offended, and that the family and the interests of thefamily' were in jeopardy. It was the first occasion he could recall within the last 15 years in which there had been recourse ■by one party in the. House to the unusual procedure of debating a measure before its introduction. Mr. McCOMBS (L., Lyttelton): Tell us what the reasons -were for that action 15 years ago. , • Mr. HOLLAND said the Opposition had taken this course because, after being acquainted of the. intention of the Government, it was their only opportunity of registering their disgust till the second reading stage. Referring to the. four main provisions of the Bill. he. said that the first dealt with the system of calculating the boundaries. That system had given satisfaction for years and he hud never heard a single protest till now when families meant, something. Preyi- - ous Governments had recognized that the family was the foundation of the social and economic life of the country. A Government member: And you paid them 10/- a week. Mr. HOLLAND said that the family was not to be considered now when the boundaries were worked out. Mr. McCOMBS: How many votes did they have before? Mr. HOLLAND said the Opposition would fight the measure with all the virility in its possession to preserve the rights of the very foundation of the country's life, which was the family. The only reason for the Government wanting to make thfejehnnge was’because iLthought it had ditetfer chance. Of’Wnningwflie next election if it disregarded the families. The second point was the change in the composition of the boundary commission. Previously there had been two. one for each island. Now there was to be one. with the Government making the appointments. Surely if there were to be umpires appointed to fix the boundaries, one would imagine that that would be left to an independent tribunal. The system had been satisfactory in the past. Why alter it now? Was it because the Government expected to get better treatment from the four men it appointed to the commission than from public servants who had given complete satisfaction. Labour Organizers Active. Labour organizers were going up and down the country examining territories to see where the new boundaries would go. Government voices: Where did you get that? . Mr. HOLLAND said they were making no secret of this fact. The third point was the alteration in the tolerances. In the past it had been 250, or one per_cent. for towns and cities, and 1250 or 5 per cent, in the country districts, so that all interests could best be served. Now it was proposed to wipe out those recommendations of independent tribunals and double the tolerances. The effect was to benefit the cities. The only reason could be to ensure that the Government had a better chance at the next election. The fourth point was the removal of the country quota, which was a deliberate attack on the country people. In 1938 the Government stacked the electorates with public works for its benefit. In 1943 ballot papers were burned. Now it proposed to alter the electoral boundaries while people were out of the country. He recalled a speech made some time ago by the member for Christchurch East. Miss Howard, and efuoted in the “Standard, saying that the Opposition would not have Buckley's chance, of winning the election, and that "we will fix that by our legislation. We will put the coffin nails in them before long.” Thisslegislation provided the conditions for those nails, eaid Mr. HOLLAND, who moved an amendment that consideration of the Bill be postponed till the Government’s proposals for altering the electoral laws had been submitted to a vote of the people through the medium of a referendum specially conducted for the purpose or at a general election. He said that he could not visualize any fair-minded person who wanted to see justice done voting against the amendment. It was the very essence of democracy that the electors should decide ■ whether the rules should be altered, and not a party majority. Mr. SUTHERLAND (N„ Hauraki) seconded the amendment. Members of Commission. Mr. FRASER, Prime Minister, said it was to be regretted that so much heat had been shown by the Lender of the Opposition, and that so many mis-state-ments had been sent whirling' through the superheated atmosphere of the Chamber. The first was in connexion with the appointment of the members of the commission. The position at the moment was that two of the four members of the commission at the last election were still living apd therefore stiil members. One was the nominee of the present Government and the other the nominee of a previous Government. There was not the slightest intention of asking these men to resign. So far as the criticism of the constitutional procedure was concerned he pointed out that the Government in 1931 had not sought a mandate to extend the life of Parliament during an emergency, nor had it sought a mandate to cut wages ami salaries. The Opposition did not find fault with that, but now that it was proposed to put right a eonstitntiomil error of long standing the Opposition rose in wrath and said that was wrong. There had also been threats from a section of the community. He did not care what section of the community made threats on a political issue. That did not have the slightest effect on him. He could find no indication when 'he country quota was introduced in .1881

that the people were ever consulted. There had been the same heated debate in the House then by the opponents of the proposal. Again iu 1887 it had been said that there was no mandate from the people. The Tory Party of that day had brought the measure down and it was forced through the House after atremendous fight by the Radicals. The same procedure was being followed now. Whatever the result of the next glee; tlon was, that was for the decision of the people. The election would provide a referendum. If the people thought mat one vote in the city should not be equal to one vote in the country they would vote the Government out. That was their prerogative, but the present Government held the view that wherever human beings lived they were entitled to equality in voting. The country quota was just an attempt by the landed interests against democratic franchise, and the Government would welcome a fight by those who sought to preserve this remnant of mediaeval Toryism. It was the privilege ot the Opposition to put up the best li-ht possible, but he hoped it would be made without ill-feeling. The Opposition could use all the rules of the House, but if there was any deliberate obstruction (hen the Government, would use a weapon that had been placed on the Statute Book, namely the application ot the closure. The Government was preparing to taue its stand by one vote one value. Democracy had no meaning unless it meant that. As far as the Maoris were concerned special provision was made tor them. If that became an anachronism then it would be for them to determine. , , , , The Prime Minister concluded by saying that his main object had been to show that those who talked about, unconstitutional procedure overlooked the methods that had been adopted when the measure had been introduced. Nothing in Pamphlet. Mr. AVATTS (N.. Riccarton) said he had never heard the Prime Minister wander around a point so much and fail to get down to grips with anything as he had done in his speech. Fbr wandering about and drawing red herrings he was the past-master in the House. He rose to great, heights of indignation when suddenly discovering when the Government had been in office for 10 years that there was something on the Statute Book that was a disgrace and a denial of justice. Mr. Fraser: I did not say that. Mr WATTS said the words used were to that effect. When he was asked by Opposition speakers wbat his attitude to families was the Prime Minister just steered clear of that issue. He referred to the Labour Party s pamphlet, at the last election, and said it contained no reference to the country quota. The Government was just carrying out what it was told to do by those ■outside Parliament. The Bill was a cold, calculated effort bv the Government with only one purpose, and that was to retain office at all costs. Ten years of office ha< so corrupted the Government that it had reached a stage when it was prepared Mr. SEMPLE, Minister of Works, rising to a point of order, asked if the suggestion that members of the Government were corruptible were not out of order. Mr. SPEAKER said the word corrupted was completely out of order. Mr. WATT’S said the Government had won three elections on the present electoral system and it. had. .now reached a stage when it wa's'litiitkrirpt of-ideas and had nothing else to- sell, and its only desire was to hang on to power. He had no fears for the next election, and he was satisfied that the Bill would put the National Party into office. ihe people of the Dominion would remember the investigation into the irregularities in the Electoral Department in so far as overseas voting was concerned. Very recent history in Europe had proved that when people lost confidence in the .electoral system it was the first step in undermining democratic government. A government that would introduce such a Bill was not worthy of New Zealand, and no doubt at the next election it would "ets its desserts. It was not only an attack on the rural population, but really an indirect attack on city people for one man in the country kept two going in the city. The Government had taken a hypothetical advantage to itself against the national wellbeing of the whole country. Possible Gains and Losses. Mr. MACFARLANE (L., Christchurch South) said it was long since the House hud listened to such hysterical outbursts as tnose of the Opposition members who had spoken on the resolution. During the Local Election and Polls Act debates, the Opposition, which now alleged virtual disfranchisement, had opposed enfranchisement for farmers’ wives, railway workers and others. , Dealing with likely effects of the abolition of thei country quota, he said it appeared the South Island would lose three seats —two Opposition and one Government. It was possible that Christchurch City would gain an extra seat. In the South Island, two electorates where Opposition members were elected' on majorities under 1090 would have

their electoral boundaries extended and' they would be more secure. How was the Government getting an advantage from that? , „ Mr. FRASER: I think the Government is a benefactor. Mr. MACFARLANE continued that two Government members might find themselves with more difficult electorates. In the North Island it was fairly obvious that one of the Auckland seats would have a considerable overflow from Remuera and one seat might go to the Opposition. Yet Ihe Opposition was trying to create the impression the Government was doing something unfair for its own gain. Mr. SPEAKER said that members were making their speeches as for a second reading debate, whereas the subject before the House was a resolution and amendment. Mr. KIDD (N„ Waitaki) quoted Mr. Fraser, when in Opposition at a time when a previous Government wished to extend the life of Parliament, as stating that a mandate must first be sought from the people. The. Minister of Works, Mr. Semple, at the same time bad said it should be made an election issue. He challenged any Government member for a rural constituency to say that during the 1943 campaign be told the electors that if returned his party was going to abolish the country quota. Mr. WILLIAMS: 1 did. Air. OSBORNE : The National Party told them that.

Air. KIDD: They knew nothing about it till some of your Left Wingers sprung

Air. FRASER appealed to Air. Speaker concerning the ruling already given. Air. SPEAKER replied that every one of the speeches so far given could be classed as second reading speeches. The House should speak either to the resolution or the amendment. Air. KIDD continued that the proposed legislation was dictated by fear: the writing on the wall. It was said that the Government, was altering the rules during the game. In fact, it was altering them before the game slarted, for that would be at the next general election. It. was the greatest insult that could be offered the rural community after the way in which it had pulled its weight during the war. He would be one of the sorriest, men in the House if the farmers followed the lead of the Trades Hail and took direct action. If they did so, the onus would be on the Government

Air. SEMPLE, Alinister of Works, said that his remarks in opposing an extension of the life of a previous Parliament another Government had no comparison with the measure before the House. At the time a Government which was imposing poverty on the people was seeking to perpetuate itself in office without a mandate. The reason he opposed the Opposition amendment was that the unjust principle of the country quota was never placed on the Statute Book by consent of the people. If the Opposition believed that the measure was going to wreck the Government, why did it not encourage the Government in it. All the measure meant was equality of power. AVas the Opposition afraid to trust the people on an equal voting basis, or did it stake its political future on acres, bricks and mortar and livestock? As far back as 1898 a Liberal newspaper had attacked, the eountry s quota as a relic of the dark ages and so hud politicians of those times. The country quota was first placed on the Statute Book by a Tory Government without the people’s consent. Quota and Census.

Mr. BOAVDEN (N., Wellington West) said he optwsed the resolution for sever'd reasons. The Bill was not for the purpose stated but instead was a desperate attempt to hold office after the 1943 indication of a rising tide against the Government. The time was inopportune because the country quota proposal was allied with the taking of a census at, a time when there was a false basis for it. It was well known that the city electorates were swollen. Of 150,000 persons displaced, a large number had not returned -to thqir original electorates. Figures from the Year Book of the 1930 census and the 1943 general election figures showed that the proportion of electors to population was 100 to 145. In the main cities of Dunedin, Christchurch, Auckland and Wellington it was 100 to 141, 133, 124, and 124 respectively, the smaller cities 160 to 145, the North Island counties 100 to 105, the South Island counties 100 to 101 j and representative counties all over New Zealand, 100 to 101. This showed there was a far greater proportion of children among country workers. The Government proposed to disfranchise minors but ‘•it took them into account when it suited tor taxation. Mr. AV. A. Fox, a trades union representative, was quoted in the “News Review” of London in February, 194:>, as stating that Labour’s position would be stronger when seats were allocated on a basis of population instead, of favouring the farming community. Yet. iu June. 1945, the Acting-Prime Alinister stated that the Government had not considered the abolition of the country quota. in 1935 and 193 S the Government wanted the farmers’ votes J in 1943 it still did not want to quarrel with them or upset them during the war. but now that it knew it had lost their votes iu any case, and its interests lie in the cities, it proposed to abolish the country quota. The proposals wore also undemocratic because they were not. universal. They did not apply to the Maori seats where the Government had a flying start, holding all Mr. C. CARR (L., Timaru) said that all the noise from the Opposition side of the House was a storm in a teapot. The Opposition members knew they had no argument and were only beating an empty drum. He had studied the question closely, and he failed to see that the Government was going to gain any considerable advantage from the Bill. Ihe Government was just as likely to lose. Did that matter? All the Government was concerned with was that a democratic franchise should operate in this country. Reference had been made to the Maoris. but they, had communal owned lands and a widely different economy to th'at of pakehas. The Opposition as the Government of the day had robbed the Maoris of the secret vote and the secret ballot. Mr. SMITH (N„ Bay of Islands) said the Government was filching the con

stitutionul rights of a great many people in thi« country. If this were the Gov •ernment’s idea of a new order then the sooner we went back to the old order of fair play, honesty, justice and decency the better. In his electorate he had 20 local bodies and 107 schools. Country members had problems such as roads Tad bridges with which city members had little to do. . Miss HOAVARD (L., Christchurch East said that statements had been made that boundaries would be rigged. ■ Air. ROY (N., Clutha): Is that not being ddne now? Miss HOAVARD: No, it is not, and you know it. ' . _ .

She added that it was not a sporting "esture by the Leader of the Opposition to quote in the way he did from a speech she had made at New Plymouth. She had never mentioned the country quota. She mentioned social security amendments and said what she hoped they would’he, though she had no knowledge of them at that stage. She also mentioned the Employment Promotion Bill, and did say that such legislation would nut coffin nails in the coffin ot the Opposition. ■ That had been done pretty effectively. Never had she mentioned country quota, but the Leader of the Opposition wanted to infer she knew all about it. The Leader of the Opposition should have been honest and told the "hphe extent to which she found' the country seething with discussion was at the prospect that the 'Government might not put the measure through. However, the workers need have no fear about that So far as appointments to the eonimisisan were concerned, the Government would follow the same procedure it had adopted with all appointments, .namely, to select ■ the most suitable persons. She bad no fears as to the commission, as no person would accept such a position unless he .was competent to do so and above suspicion. Interpretation of Speech. Mr. BODKIN (N< Central Otago) said remarks of the member for Christ; church East quoted by the Leader of /the Opposition had to be read in conjunction with other statements made by Government members. The one piece of legislation which would/ have a vital bearing on represenation in Parliament was the legislation before the House, and the only reasonable interpretation that could be placed on the speech of the member for Christchurch East was that this was the legislation that would drive the nails in the coffin of the Opposition. The amendment should be supported wholeheartedly becaues it prescribed the only democratic method for altering the Parliamentary democratic machine, namely, by taking the matter out vf the realm of party politics and leaving it for the people to decide. Some Government members had already made it clear that ojje of. the existing members of the commission was a Government nominee and that two more were to be appointed. That would mean a majority for the friends of the Government on the commission. It was important that such a matter should be referred to the people. Air. NORDMEYER, , Alinister of Health, said that if there was so. much resentment in the country, and if the Government was so unpopular, the Opposition should welcome that fact and let the measure go through. The tact that it was'not doing so suggested thut it had doubts whether the resentment was shared by any others than themselves; lie challenged the Opposition to deny that it was its intention if it ever became the Government to reduce the number of electorates to 40 and to do so without the approval of the electors. Opposition members: Sheer nonsense. Air. NORDMEYER said he knew on the best of authority that that was the policy of the Opposition, and that it also proposed to keep the country quota as it was. That would reduce the workers representation in Parliament. Following frequent interjections at this stage. Air. Speaker called members to order. He said it was.fortunate that Parliament was off the air, as the conduct was not to the credit of members. Mr. NORDMEYER said it was of importance, seeing so much had been stated about constitutional procedure, to recall that the constitution of this country did not provide for a country quota. The Government by this measure would be returning to the constitutional position. Opposition members, by talking about changing the rules in the middle of the game, actually revealed their state of mind, namely, that they regarded politics as a game. (Opposition laughter.) The Government regarded polities as a serious business, vitally affecting the welfare and livelihood of the people. Mr. HARKER (N., Waipawa) assured the Alinister that there was not one tittle of truth in his assertion that the Opposition intended to reduce the number of electorates to 40. Opposition voices: Of course he knows that. . Mr. HARKER said he agreed. No intelligent person would consider that the Alinister even believed the assertion himself. He felt the main point about the country quota was how it bad stood the test of time There hud been no alteration to it in 60 years. Governments which had followed its introduction had indicated their approval by the fact that no attempt was made to repeal it. Mr. ARMSTRONG (L.. Napier) said that the country people did not believe the Opposition claim that they were the most important section of the community ;they knew all sections wcer interdependent. The Government was trying to divide the population on an equal basis irrespective of where they made their economic contribution. Had better endeavours been made in the past to provide amenities for rural workers there would be greater population in the country areas today. Instead the big stations employed single men but when these men got married they were too expensive to keep and ended up in the towns. Closure Applied. At 11-25 p.m. Air. FRASER moved that the question be put. Opposition members: The gag. Air SPEAKER said he was satisfied that the question should be put. 'I here had been 31 speakers on the resolution alone. , . . - - On a division, the voting in favour ot the question being put was Ayes 40, x Noes 34. . . , ~ ~ Two further divisions were held. On (he first the amendment was defeated oy 40 to 34 and on the second the formal

resolution transmitting the draft of the Bill was carried by 40 to 34. At 11.48 p.m. Mr. Fraser moved th.it the Bill be read a first time and be printed. A further division was then called for and the motion carried by 40 to 34. The second reading will be taken on AA'ednesday. 'Pho House adjourned at 11.55 p.m till 10.30 a.m. today.