ELECTION TIES.

Grey River Argus, 23 July 1926, Page 6

ELECTION TIES.

and party funds, interesting remarks. When a return showing the 1925 , election results in detail was laid be- ' fore the House, Mr "i. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) asked the -Minister to say whether the Government was likely to make provision for cases such as occurred in the late elections at Westland and Lyttelton, ihose were contests in regard to whTch there was bound to be a petition from one side or the other, no matter in what way the Returning Officer’s casting vote had gone. Consequently the petitions lodged could not be regarded us frivolous. It was true that the casting vote in each case had, contrary to all established custom, been cast against the sitting member, but if it had been cast the other way, there would still have been a petition, and, instead of the individual being calico upon to bear the cost of the necessary proceedings to determine who had been elected, it ought to be a matter for the country. The Government had paid the salary of Mr Lyons, w'ho was de feated in the Lyttelton election. He was not going to raise the least objection to that; at the same time, he u« not think that the Government had any legal warrant for paying the amount. Mr Coates: We could not do anything else. Mr Holland said that Mr was never elected; the subsequent proceed ings proved that he was not elected. If he had been elected the member for Lyttelton would have had no claim for tho payment of his salary. Mr Coates: Mr Lyons was declared elected.

Mr Holland said: Yes, but a petition was lodged immediately; and it would be just as logical to say a man was actually guilty when the jury foun him guilty and his counsel lodged an appeal against the jury’s findings, in such a case the man could not be said to be guilty until his appeal had been adversely decided. The same thing applied in a case like the Lyttelton election. The Court had decided that Mr McCombs was elected. At the. same time, he thought the Government was justified in paying Mr Lyons a salary in this case, though ho did not think they had any legal warrant. But there should be no discrimination; if they were justified in making good the loss suffered by one man, and he thought they were, they would also be justified in making good the loss suf fered bv the other candidate in th election, and by the two candidates in the Westland election. Of course, there was a lot to be said against establishing precedents in that way, but it was a matter the Government ought to certainly look into. There was substantial case for the country Standing the expense in the two petitions. With regard to election expenses, in many cases th > £2OO limit was not high enough. In the cities it was quite high enough. It did tint cost a city candidate anything like the amount r cost the country candidate to contest a seat. The city man could jump in a tram car and travel round the whole ol the electorate on a 3d tram ticket, and if he happened to be a member of the

City Council he did not always have to pay for his ticket. But me man in tho country electorate had to find a very large amount for motor car expenses and travelling. In many cases in tho country electorates the train service was of no use to the candidatelie could not afford to wait for th< train, because he must address hitthree or four meetings a day; and it would often cost him anything up t< ! £lO a day for car hire to reach the distant parts of the electorate. Therefore, there was a reasonable case ir. favour of enlarging the amount which could be expended in country electorates. So far as he could remember, the Labour Party’s expenses in the city electorates would not run to more than £5O a candidate, and yet the campaign was fairly effectively made, except that viiey could not afford the fullpage advertisements inserted day In day, by the Reform Party. While the House was dealing with money expended in connection with elections, they might consider legislation requiring all parties to publish a full list of the donations they received toward party funds. It was no! an unreasonable request; the people had the right to know who were sup porting the different parties. An Hon Member: Why? Mr Holland said that every penny received by the Labour Party during the last election was accounted for am made public week by week in thr columns of the “New Zealand Work er. ’’ Details were printed of all the money received, whether it was a threepenny-bit or a shilling from a wharf-labourer or a £5 note from somebody else, or a larger contribution from an organisation; and the name was given in each case. Mr Coates: In every case? Mr Holland: If the Prime Minister questions that statement, _ will make him an offer.

Mr Coates: I do not question it. 1 am surprised; that is all.

Mr Holland: The Prime Minister need not express surprise. He, (Mi Holland) was sure that the people ol New Zealand would bo far mor ' surprised if the Prime Minister published the details of all the donations his party received at election times. Thpublication of these lists, assuming that everything was above-board, would remove a very great suspicion. The people had seen those huge advertisements appearing is connection with ‘the Reform Party, and they knew that it cost thousands of pounds to pay for that kind of advertising; and naturally the question arose, not only in the minds of the opponents of the Government but also in the minds of their supporters —“Where does the money come from?” It was a perfectly legitimate question. There was nothing offensive in asking for an answer to it. Mr Coates: It is curiosity. Mr Holland maintained that it was not curiosity. He thought it wa% a legitimate request to make. H« thought the Prime Minister was quite entitled to know where tho Labour •{Party got its money .from, and vice versa. Mr Downie Stewart: Some people .prefer to do good by stealth. Mr Holland said some comment had been made on the foreign names of some of the contributors to the Labour Party’s funds; but every citizen of this country should be guaranteed the same rights. We made it a boast that once a man became established as a New Zealand citizen he had all the rights of a British citizen guaranteed him; yet the Hon Minister ,of Finance had sneered at some of these foreign men because, he said, he could not pronounce names. . - , Mr Downie Stewart: I was joking.

Mr Holland said he was glad to hear that. There were, of course, a numbci of foreigners here wno subscribed to rhe Labour Party funds, just as there were a number of foreigners who sub scribed to the Reform Party funds. •The only difference was that those who subscribed to tho Labour Party i funds wore bowyangs, while the others wore silk hats. Mr Coates: Did you ever wear bowyangs? Mr Holland: I did when I was a boy, and I am not ashamed of it. Mr Coat eg, said that a number of the Reform Party’s supporters wore then, yet. Mr Holland remarked that he had once said in the House that the intelligent section or the worKers voted foi the Labour Party. The hon member for Palmerston North had immediately interjected, “and the others vote for the Reform Party,’’ and he (Mr Holland), of course, hastened to agreu with the member for Palmerston North.

The most serious aspect of the changes that were brought about by the census reports was the manner in which the South Island constituencies were being enlarged. Census by cen sus a number of the South Island constituencies became larger and more difficult to handle, and more expensive, until the position was reached, that, in the matter of remuneration, the man who represented a huge country constituency was anything from £lOO to £2OO a year worse off that the member who represented a city constituency. The former found it difficult to look after the needs of the constituency; he found that his remuneration was whittled down, by reason of the fact that he had to travel over such large areas, until it did not represent a labourer’s wage. The constituency was a very large one, out it would taKe second place as against Motueka, Wakatipu or Wallace, and other large country constituencies. Tnis was a problem that had to be faced sooner or later. The North Island constituencies were becomihg contracted while the South Island constituencies were expanding. He (Mr 11. E. Holland) knew that the North Island had to bo given the representation to which it was entitled by reason of its numerical strength; but this was a matter that would probably be dealt with later on during the life of the present Parliament, and he did not propose to go into it any further—except to say that because of this expansion of the South Island constituencies it would very soon become impossible in a number of cases for any but a very wealthy man to accept the representation of the constituency, mat was not making a ease against the man who was wealthy becoming a candidate for Parliament, but it was a bad principle if the door was closed against the men who had not wealth behind them. There must be some men in the House to whom the Parliamentary remuneration meant nothing more than electorate expenses —the. expenses incurred in contesting the election once in three years and. of travelling the electorate and looking after it generally during the rest of .the time. Jt was only possible for certain men to retain their membership of the. House because they were i.vealthy men. / Mr Nosworthy: Why not make the lif° of Parliament five years? > Mr Holland said he did not think .that would heln at all. ’ Mr Potter: Why not increase the .honorarium? / Mr Holland said that ho was not .suggesting increasing the honorarium. .He thought, th “re was a good case to be made for following the Queensland method of making constituency allowances according to the size of the constituency, in order to place members on an equality remuneration, i nere. could not be a case made for paying one member what represented, say, £450, and paying another what, nrobablv - net represent £250. This, however, was a matter that could no doubt be dealt with at some later stage.