UPPER HOUSE DUBIOUS

Evening Star, Issue 25635, 8 November 1945, Page 9

UPPER HOUSE DUBIOUS

mixed reception to quota bill , prominent labourite favours referendum (p.A.) Wellington, Nov. 7. r The hints of direct action to counter the introduction of the Electbral Amendment Bill were deployed by Speakers in the second reading debate on the Bill in the Legislative Council to-day. They urged the setting up of an impartial commission to examine the questions involved and to bring down a report on their implications. It was also suggested that the commission’s findings should be " placed before the people prior tp the taking of,a referendum on the question whether they wished any change tp be made in the electoral laws of the country. A feature of the debate Was the oplpositibn to the Bill expressed by Hon. T. Bloodworth (Auckland), a member of the Labbur Party. Hon. W. Grounds (Auckland) expressed his deep conviction that a fatally wrong step was being taken. Protagonists were ranged against each other on the question, and these protagonists were being reinforced by power groups outside the ordinary sphere of politics. The slogan, “ One man, one vote; one vote, one value,” did not represent the true position. There was ho sense in that slogan unless there was equal representation for each vote, and,that was where an unchallengeable Claim lay for the retention of thp quota in connection with the electoral provisions for scattered districts. Equitable voting power and equivalent representation were not synonymous terms. If the Pill became law there was a grave danger of a very material upset of general economic stability. “ I am not sympathetic with any suggestions of direct action, whether from one side or the other, but we must take cognisance of the deep fundamental unrest, that is likely to be promoted by this legislation,” Mr Grounds added. ILL-CONCEIVED MEASURE. Mr (Bloodworth said he had been a member of the Labour Party for a great many years, but lie still favoured a referendum on the question. The measure had been discussed largely from a party viewpoint, but lie considered it to be one dealing with the Welfare of the country as a whole, not only for the next *few years, but probably for t'ie distant future. So far as lie had been able to discern, no mention of the measure was made by either the Ministers or the party leader during the 1943 election campaign. Hon. T. Brindle (Wellington): It has been on the platform for years. Mr Bloodworth said the Bill, which had not been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, was ■ a hasty and ill-conceived interference with fundamental laws, and the people had given no authority for the change. If such a step were taken without 'the people’s authority, another Government might come into power and carry the matter further. The loss of civil liberty had gone on step by step. ‘‘l am one of those who think that this matter should be referred to the country by way of a referendum,” Mr Bloodworth said. ” I think we should take steps now to protect our political rights, which should not be at the mercy of any political party which happens to be in power at the time.” Mr Bloodworth urged that some impartial tribunal should look into the whole matter of the electoral laws and submit a report on those changes considered necessary. That report should bo submitted to the people and fullv explained to them, and they should vote on the question at some time apart from election time. DIRECT ACTION DEPLORED. Hon. E. R. Davis (Auckland) said it was a pity that 'this measure had created a great deal of dissension and disturbance throughout the country. He thought it doubtful that the Bill \Vould have the results at the next election that its sponsors expected. “ I am very sorry to think that direct action by certain elements in this country is threatened in connection with this measure,” said Mr Davis. “ I sincerely hope that good sense will appeal to those who are inclined to favour any such course.” Hon. J. Cumming (Petono): It is only a bit of bluff. Mr Davis' said that because some people had shown that they could get something for themselves by direct action, it was no reason why the holders of a different viewpoint should resort to the same tactics. Two wrongs did not make one right. Mr Davis added that certain features of the Bill had aroused bitter feeling among sections of the community. He agreed with Mr Bloodworth’s suggestion for a referendum. Hon. V. A. Ward (Wellington) said that no political party had the right to change the rules by which members were elected, and if an important issue dealing with the electoral system had to be decided it should be decided by the people who sent their representatives to Parliament. The debate was adjourned until tomorrow. : [Mr Bloodworth, who is secretary of the Auckland Carpenters’ Union, has been a prominent member of the Labour movement for many years. Ever since 1919, when lie was first elected to the Auckland City Council, lio has given notable service on local bodies. He contested the Parnell seat as a Labour candidate in 1919 and 1930. He was called to the Legislative Council in 1934 and was reappointed for a further term in 1941.]