POINTS OF PARLIAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 15308, 7 October 1913, Page 3

POINTS OF PARLIAMENT

FIRST MONDAY SITTING. LOCAL BILLS CONSIDERED, [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 7. The House of Representatives,, began overtime work last night for the purpose of considering a number of local ‘ Bills (mostly affecting harbor boards) which threatened, before the Government last week decided to take Monday night, to be left .neglected until the closing hours of the session, and then hurled with crudities on Vo the Statute Book. There appeared to be no rancor over the Government’s seizure the evening, and serious attention was it once given to the scheduled business. CLOSER SETTLEMENT. One of several notices of questions held a touch of sarcasm. In Mr Russell’s best Party style he gave notice to ask the Minister of Lands, tho Hon. W. F. Massey, whether tho Government had any other other than those disclosed in -heir Land Bill, to promote settlement, more settlement, and still more settlement. THE NAVAL POLICY. More interesting and more to the point was Sir Joseph Ward’s question without notice as to whether tho Government had reemved reply to their question recently cabled to the Imperial authorities in connection with the Navy. The Prime Minister replied that by a coincidence a cable from the Imperial authorities crossed the Government’s, but he was still unable to make a statement; in regard to the Naval Policy. This would be forthcoming in a week or two. Sir Joseph Ward: Is it necessary to ■await a reply to vonr cable? The Prime Minister: It is not necessary. PLURAL VOTING CONDEMNED.

The House went into committee to contider five local Bills, of which the first was the Gisborne Harbor Board Enabling Bill (Mr W. D. S. Mac Donald). It proposes to enable that board to borrow £200,000 for the construction of harbor works and for paying off a balance of a former loan. The subsequent discussion was of national interest, partly because it disclosed the widespread demand for loans for harbor work, but mostly on account of a clause gratuitously into the measure by the Local Bills Committee—a clause providing a system of plural voting. This clause was referred to ou the second reading of the Bill, but not with the same, earnestness. The Chairman of the Local Bills Committee (Air Pearce), in reply to Mr Ell, who had pointed out that the ratepayers had not been consulted as to the introduction of plural voting, explained that as several harbor boards were asldng Tarhament for power to borrow close on £1,000,000, it was thought necessary, in the face of extraordinary demands, that some check should be imposed. The system of plural voting was inserted so as to give those people who had to find the money an opportunity of saying whether they would mortgage their property to that extent. There were also a considerable number of speculators in the town (Gisborne), and they might use such a proposal of enhancing the value of their properties, and then disposing of them. Mr Wilkinson did not think the plural voting would have the desired effect of decreasing voting. It would probably be better to increase the sinking fund from 4 to 1 per cent. Air Mac Donald explained that three combined districts had agreed as to the term,s of the Bill.

The Deader of the Opposition contended that the committee’s amendment was entirely m the interests of the largo landowners. Under the committee’s proposals 00l men on the land could give a vote equal to that of 1,000.

~,T h' s r dre ' v from the Minister of Justice (the Hon. A. . L. Herdman) a reminder that feir Joseph Ward had voted for a similar proposal m a Bill relating to Mokau lands. Ihe Local Bills Committee had a right to amend a proposal which they considered to be contrary to the public interest. Mr Pearce pointed out that the same principle had been embodied in the Mokau and ISew Plymouth Harbor Board Bills and the committee thought that what was for one board would be right for an-

Mr Forbes said they always found men who sat on the Government side of the House championing the cause of property. The man who held a large area of land had enough power already, without giving him plural voting. It was like greasing the fat sow. (Laughter.) Mr iM'Callum characterised the action of the Local Bills Committee in altering angle voting to plural voting as “ impertinence, but being challenged substituted the word “temerity.” The man with a rS.fo Perty ’ nr 8« d > had as much right as a man with a big property. f „^; oke y held that there should be afranchise adopted and put into every local kndoff. he °- cal h?dy asked for a certain kind of franchise they should have it. l."'.rSk : i“ e „T h '"' And the

Mr Webb declared that if this or any Government tinkered with the franchise ihe working people would vote them down. Mr Bradney expressed himself as being against plural voting in any shape or Sir Joseph Ward explained that the contained the principle of m to! t! . ng K eforQ lfc entered the comm ttee Tb Wh R-n U e T rged from committee. The Bill now before them originally contained the principle of single vot-dlf-V, b “i I th6 - L ° Cal Bills Committee had deliberately inserted the • principal of P v ° tin S* although no one in the district had asked for such an alteration. The original proposal was for a ratepayers’ vote upon a rateable basis. 1 i barb Mac . D P" ald pointed out that the harbor district concerned had an annual income of £6,800 a year. The rating proFoTn mere yto g ‘ Ve securit y the Mr Sidev said that whenever a proposal of the sort had come before the House he had voted against plural voting It did not appear to him to be very much to the point that the county still retained Auv. 1 wT 8 m ? rdl,lal T circumstances. Although the provision was allowed to remam by the Liberal party, he felt sure that if they had remained in office the time would not have been far distant when town people would have been brought into_ line with boroughs in that respect. If it was a right principle for boroughs why should it not bo right for counties ? b

An amendment; move by Mr Wilkinson, to increase the sinking fund from i to 1 T as re J ec ted on the voices. When, clause 12 (the vital clause) was reached the member in charge of the Bill moved that the amendment made bv the remittee be disagreed with, and that the following words be added in lieu evef y such ratepayer shall be entitled to exercise one vote and no more, a reversion to the original provision. The House divided on g the question, and. by 27 to 18 decided in lavor of retaining the principle of one ratepayer one vote. The division-list was as follows : .

Ayes (27).—Anderson, Bradney, Clark, Colvin, Craigio, Ell, Fisher, Glover M'K B n, a ; rßh ’Ar,i ne ’ Mac Donald' tju a ZIe A Ildar > Myers, Pom,-ire, A. H. Rhodes, Robertson, Hidey, E. W. Smith, Wat,i an w ul kes ’ I 7' C - Thomson, Veitch, Ward > Webb, and Wilkinson. Noes (18). Bell, E. F. Bollard, Buick, Dickson, Escott, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Herdman, Hernes, Mander, E. Newman Nosworthy, Okey, Pearce, Scott, F. H. Smith, and G. M. Thomson,. The Bill was reported with amendments.

WANGANUI HARBOR. The Wanganui Harbor District and Empowering Bill proposed to empower the board to borrow £125,000 for the construction, of harbor works. The Local Bills Committee proposed that the amount be raised to £150,000. Discussion was prolonged on the subject of the boundaries of the rating area, objection being taken to the fact that it is proposed to leave out an area on the northern boundary between Wanganui and-Patea which will be beneficially affected by the development of the harbor. Mr , Pearce contended that the . ar e a .Tn question legitimately belongs to r V eitch, in charge of the Bill,

harbor boards of Wanganui and Patea, an 6 area, in question should be put in ™ Fatea district. He agreed to accept Ar ™ on tho House on the matter,—r Mr Hindmarsh urged that the question ought to be settled before the Bill was allowed to proceed further. It had been reported that the chairman of the Local Bills Committee (Mr Pearce) and his brother had £30,000 worth of property in the debatable area.—Mr Pearce explained that. the _ Government unimproved valuation of ms property of 1,200 acres, mostly unfenced sandhills in the area referred to, —After much talk as to whether the area, which is neither in the Wanganui rating nor that, of Patea, should be inserted in the Patea Harbor Bill, the irrime Minister said he would see that the Fatea Bill was dealt with before the Wanganui one was carried to a further stage. Then the new clause inserted by the Local Bills Committee as to plural voting was rejected by 27 to 20, and the principle of one ratepayer one ‘vote retamed as in the case of the Gisborne Bill. A motion by Mr Wilkinson that the sinking fund be increased from to 1 per cent, was defeated on the voices. At 12.46 the Bill was reported with amendments. The House, on the motion of the Prime Minister, rose at 12.50 o’clock.