TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 2, 2 July 1926, Page 9

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Mr. J. G. Elliott (Oroua) gave notice to ask- the Minister of Health ■whether the Government will sot up a Commission to inquire into the position of unregistered dentists. , The Unemployed Workers Bill (Mr. P. Fraser), the Offenders' Probation Amendment Bill (My. J. A. Lee), and the Nationalisation of Coal M'nes Bill (Mr. H. E. Holland) were introduced and read a first time. Four Government measures, the Oi! in Territorial Waters Bill, the Police Offences Amendment Bill, the Indus trial Societies Amendment Hill, and the Evidence Amendment Bill, were introduced and each read a first time. The Leader of the National Party (Mr. G. AY. Forbes) raised the Question of electoral reform when the paper giv ing the results of the last General Elee tion was tabled. He wanted to know whether the Government proposed to make any alteration in the present system. There was, for instance, the question of compulsory voting. Did tho Government intend to get anything doiie? "We are looking forward to getting things done this session," he said, glancing at the Prime Minister, as he did so, "and possibly an alteration will be made to tho electoral law." Tho Government, of course,' might look at the matter from a -different angle to that of the Leader of the Opposition himself. Ono important question had reference to the amount of money that might be spent by candidates or organisations working on their behalf. He did not think that money was subscribed by lily-white saints who did no;t expect to get any return from it. He thought, therefore, that a limit should be fixed. Mr. W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) asked if the Minister could tell tho House what the position was in regard to the realloeation of seats in the House as between the North and the South Islands. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) asked the Minister ■whether tho Government was likely to jnake any provision for a recurrence of cases such as those of Westland and Lyttelton, where election ties took place and petitions were lodged. The method in which the casting vote was given in those cases was open to question. Every principle established by custom was departed from, and the casting vote was given against the sitting member, who certainly had not been defeated by the votes of the people. The .petitions could not be regarded as frivolous, and yet a candidate was called upon to bear the expenses of proceedings for which he himself was in no way responsible. The general principle of making petitioner or respondent responsible for costs of petitions'was a safeguard against frivolous'petitions, but where there was a dead-heat there could be no question of frivolous petition, and the necessary proceedings to determine who had been elected should bo a matter for the country to pay for and not the individual. Mr. Holland said there was a lot to l>e said against establishing precedents, but the matter was one the Government certainly ought to look into, and thers was a substantial ca?o for the country itself standing the expense in these two cases. With regard to election expenses he thought the present limit of £200 was high enough for city candidates, but not for those in the country. Dealing with subscriptions to party funds he thought all parties should be compelled to publish a list of their subscribers. The Prime Minister: "That would be quite interesting." Mr. Holland said there was nothing' offensive about the matter. It was a legitimate request. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart: "Some people prefer to give by stealth." (Laughter.) Mr. Holland: "I am glad to hear the Minister admit that his party gets money by stealth, but I am not suggesting that the people who made his party donations stole the money beforehand." (Laughter.) (Proceeding.)