PLURAL VOTING.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXV, Issue LXV, 5 September 1913, Page 5

PLURAL VOTING.

THE HARBOR BILLS AMENDED,

A STRONG PROTEST

[By Telegraph— Special to Suit } WELLINGTON, Sept. 4. In four local Bills which have been dealt with this session, the Local Bills Committee has thrown out the "one ratepayer one vote" provision in connection with loan polls, substituting a clause under which two votes are tbTbe exercised by owners of property over £lOW in value, and three votes if the holding is worth over £2000. i ' rM s ""Mvatien was stoutly resisted by the Opposition to-day,, when the first or the altered measures, the Gisborne H arbor Board Empowering Bill,, came before the House. In moving the. second reading of. this Bill, Mr W. D S Mac Donald said there was no opposition to it. The purpose of the measure was to enable the Harbor Board to boraow money for carrying out port improvements estimated to cost £107,000. Mr Ell stated that he intended dividing the House upon this Bill and the iatea,- Napier, and Wanganui Harbor Bills, on account of the insertion of a clause by the Local Bills Committee providing for a scale of votes varying in number according to th« property owned by the ratepayers. As the Bills were drafted by their promoters, they provided for oae ratepayer having one vote. The chairman of the Local Bilk Committee was entitled to his political opinion, but he (the speaker) was not going to allow so reactionary a- proposal as plural voting to go "through without a struggle. ' He had failed to get the clause rejected by the committee, the reason being that it was solely Backed by the Conservative members. The Bill, ,as a whole, was useful and important, and he would not vote against the second reading, though, when it reached Committee, he would see that the voting clause was tested. A NECESSARY CHECK. ~.Ml' PearCQ ' chairman of the Local Bills Committee, declared that the clause was embodied in the Mokau and New Plymouth Harbor Bills, so it was nothing new. Mr Isitt: No. it is very old. Mr Pearce added that there were five Harbor Bills.before the House asking' for expenditure totalling £856,000. If there was to be no check on irresponsible persons voting for expenditure it would mount ur enormously. At Napier £500,000 had been spent on a harbor, ai.d now they were applying for leave to start another. Oamaru provided another case in,point. It was absurd to suggest; that the man. who paid £50 in rates should.only have a. say equal; to the holder of ;i quarter-acre section, paying twopence. The clause provided a very necessary check upon extravagance. Men in the towns voted for harbor schemes* s.mply to get work regardless of the prospects of success. Mr Isitt: "They can't conceal the, < cloven hoof; the old Tory instinct will • out." Four different communities asked for one man one vote, as shown by the < Bills, said Mr Isitt, but Mr Pearce was < going back to the dark ages with his property qualification. The distinguishing feature of parties in the House was '. that one stood for humanity, and the other for property. i It was urged by Mr McCallurn that the < Liberal members should make every possible protest against a reactionary proposal, which flouted the local bodies concerned. Congratulations to the Committee came from Mr Campbell, who said that those who paid, the piper were entitled to more votes than anyone else. Three out of four members of the Napier Harbor Board/ who were visiting Wellington, had told him they favored the plural voting clau&e. Mr Forbes said it was well known that the party in power would give greater privileges to the propertied classes. These people put the Government into office, and were now demanding their pound of flesh. "This is just the question which splits Liberal from Conservative}," declared ' Mr Laurenson, "who shall have the power of control of local affairs —human beings or broad acres?" he concluded. Mr Okey claimed that the man who paid should always have the say. The . clause did not affect elections to the Harbor Boards. Sir Joseph .Ward suggested that the converse position ought also to be considered ; why should one man, with more than £3000 worth of property, have the right to put burdens on the shoulders of two small men, in spite -)f their objections? Mr Witty was not surprised at the clause, in view of its origin. It was a big fight to get the property vote reduced from 5 to 3 and the present Government, though af raid^ to repeal Liberal Legislation, was always watching its chance to get reactionary points into a Bill. Mr Noswort.hy reminded the House +Tiat Mr Mac Donald voted against Mr Ell when the issue under discussion was contested in the Mokau Harbor Bill." Mr MacDona'd: Read the Bill, and see th« difference. The House was advised by the Prime Minister not to obstruct the Bill. The Committee, in his opinion, had a right to make the alteration; whether the proposal met with his approval or not was nnothpr question. After a four hours' discussion, the Bill wae read a second time.