DOMINION PARLIAMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 September 1931, Page 5

DOMINION PARLIAMENT

LOAN BILLS DEBATED HOUSE ADJOURNS FOR WEEK ’/[FEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, September 9. The House of Representatives met •at 7.30 p.m. Mr Smith gave notice of intention to introduce a Companies’ Empowering Amendment Bill. The Local Elections and Polls Amendment Bill Number -Two (Mr McCombs) was introduced and read a first time. There was a lengthy discussion on

the report of the Petitions Committee, which recommended that no action be taken in respect to the petition of A. T. Murray, of Wanganui for admission to the dental profession. Mr Hogan moved that the report be referred back to the . Committee for further consideration. He said that the petitioner was a fully competent dentist, but because of nervousness, the result of war injuries, he was unable to pass the examinations. Other members supported the amendment.

Mr Polson said that although Murray suffered nervousness in the examination room, his nerves did not trouble him when operating on the patient. Mr Forbes: What about* the patient’s nerves? (Laughter). It was also ppinted out,that there a number of others in the same situation as petitioner.

Mr Young questioned whether it was wise to open the door to the profession in this manner.

Mr Clinkard, Chairman of the Peti

tions Committee said the Committee was quite willing to reconsider the petition, but he did not see how any good purpose could be served, unless additional evidence was produced. Mi' Wright sdid that in view of Mr Clinkard’s attitude he -would like to know whether the-House could grant admission to a profession, despite the report of the Committee. The Speaker said the House had

the power to grant admission if it so desired. It was in no way bound by the report of the Committee. The amendment was adopted. The Local Elections and Polls Amendment. Bill (Mr Mason) was considered in committee. Mr Mason said that the Bill empowered local authorities if they so desired to employ the alternative system of voting. It would permit them to employ the “cross” system. Mr Lysnar opposed the Bill, stressing the need for uniformity in voting systems. Mr Barnard and Mr Carr said that they’regarded the measure as an improvement. 'The latter however, said he regarded all existing systems as imperfect. He considered it illogical to ask electors to indicate the candidates for whom they wished to vote by striking out the names of those for whom they did ns)t wish to vote. It seemed , to be a reductio ad absurduni principle. He did not think placing a “cross” opposite the names of (hose for whom the electors wished to vote was altogether satisfactory, because from schoolboys onward people had come to regad the “cross” as representing that which was wron%. He thought it would be preferable for electors to place a. “tick” opposite the names of candidates for whom' they wished to vote. Mr Clinkard suggested it would tend to eliminate errors if the electors instead of placing crosses on voting papers were requested to place numerals against the names of those for whom they were voting. For instance, they would place figure one against the first candidate for whom they were voting, figure two against the second and so on, with the result that they would know exactly when they had voted for the correct number. This would avoid counting up the number of crosses.

Mr Maspn said that no one would be more pleased than he if the House would agree to this system. He had originally favoured this course, but had introduced the Bill in the* present form because he thought the House more likely to agree to a system with which the electors were already somewhat familiar. Mr Harris suggested it would be an improvement if the candidates' names were placed on the voting paper in an order determined by some method such as drawing the names from a hat. He contended under the present alphabetical arrangement, the candidates at the head of the list had better prospects than those at the bottom, because unless a man at the bottom was an outstanding figure it was quite possible many electors would, have voted for the full number permitted’ by the time they reached his name. This veiw, he said, was borne out by experience. The Bill was rejected by thirtyeight votes to twenty-four, when the division was taken on the short title. Mi’ Mason moved the second reading of the Rating Amendment Bill. The debate was interrupted by the rising of the House at 10.30 till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow. The Prime Minister intimated he would move that the House adjourn at 5.30 to-morrow evening, until 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday next. The Prime Minister also stated that the Minister of Railways would lay on the table, to-morrow afternoon, an important paper.