ELECTORAL REFORM.

Evening Star, Issue 8553, 27 June 1891, Page 1

ELECTORAL REFORM.

The Electoral Bill passed the second reading without serious opposition on the part of any section of the House ; and this was, indeed, a foregone conclusion, since the desirability of consolidating the law relating to the qualification and registration of electors and the conduct of elections was generally admitted. At present these matters are regulated by no less than eleven statutes ; and there has been, on occasion, no little confusion in reading these together. The measure is one which essentially has to be dealt with in Committee, and at the very outset the important question has been raised of extending the franchise to women, Sir John Hall having moved to amend that section of the interpretation clause which declares that " person does not include female." It is evident from the discussion on the motion for the second reading that points of objection will be raised to several of the new proposals in the Bill ; but we are inclined to think that in the main features it will remain unaltered. We certainly hope, however, that Sir John will carry his amendment, and that New Zealand will thus have the proud pre-eminence of leading the van in the political equalisation of the sexes.

At this stage of the passage of the Bill through Parliament, when it ui not too late for public opinion to be brought to bear, it is advisable, we think, that the proposed changes in the existing electoral system should b» clearly explained. With one or two exceptions these changes are, we think, in the right direction, and Ministers are to be especially commended for the determination evinced to purge the rolls and render the law intelligible to those who have the conduct of registration and electoral business. Taking the amending provisions in their order, the most important stands first: that which practically applies the "one-man-one-vote" principle to byeelections. No person is to be entitled to be registered on more than one electoral roll within the Colony, "whatever the number or nature of " the qualifications he may possess, or " wherever they may be." This may be considered the logical conclusion of the action of the Legislature in 1889, and can hardly be objected to by the present Opposition, who, p.s a party, were responsible for the Representation Act Amendment Act of that year. For good or bad, as events may prove, plural voting is a thing of the past in New Zealand. We are glad to note that the Bill proposes to apply the same rule to the Maoris, who are not to be qualified to be registered as electors on the rolls of the ordinary electoral districts, but will now be confined to the exercise of the special franchise conferred by the Maori Representation Act. At present many Natives have votes for the districts wherein they reside as well as for the Maori electorates; and there are already indications that their special representatives will tight hard to retain the privilege. In regard to registration, many improvements in matters of detail are proposed, to which it is unnecessary to refer just now. Persons entitled to be registered in one or more than one district, in respect to one or more qualifications, will have to make their choice as to the district and the qualification, and frame their claims accordingly. The machinery for purging the rolls is, as indicated above, made much more complete, and reasonable safeguards are devised against roll stuffing, which, we regret, were not available at the last General Election. In one important respect, however, the Bill, in our opinion, is defective. The law at present in force relating to objections against claims to be placed on the roll, or names already thereon, is essentially to be re-enacted. The difficulties, therefore, in the way of making and sustaining objections, even in the grossest cases, will remain practically insuperable. The registrars have duties now thrown upon them in this respect which in populous districts they cannot possibly perform, and the Bill proposes to increase their work. We are surprised that the system of "electoral rights r ' has not commended itself fc to the Government. '*'-.3j. A very important principle is proposed to be established—namely, that it is the duty of every elector to record his vote. The soundness of this principle we are not disposed to impugn, but we think in any legislation which would enforce the carrying of this out, provision should be made for electors v/ho disapprove of all the candidates nominated. They should be allowed to strike out all the names on the ballot paper, and their negative votes should be recorded accordingly. At the last City election there would have been a good many who would thus have satisfied their political consciences, instead of staying away from the poll The Bill provides that the returning officer, after every election, is to place on a fair copy of the electoral roll a distinguishing mark to indicate every elector who has voted, and shall transmit the complete roll so marked to the registrar, " who thereupon shall erase from " the roll of the district the names of " all the voters, other than candidates, " who are indicated as not having "voted." Electors thus defaulting can make fresh claims to have their names replaced, so that there need be no serious loss of constitutional privilege; and it would seem that this so far penal enactment would very materially aid the purgation of the

rolls, by effectually getting rid of "dead heads." There is a curious provision lugged in, as it were, by the "neck and heels," among the penal clauses of the Bill, to the effect that every person who " makes any wager, "bet, or other risk, of any nature "whatsoever, upon the result of "an election," shall be liable for every such offence to a penalty not exceeding £2O! We fail to understand the object of this. Are Ministers of opinion that the "one man" will give his " one vote," not patriotically or conscientiously, but according to the way he may have risked his money 3 __