PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN CHRISTCHURCH

Maoriland Worker, Volume 13, Issue 31, 1 August 1923, Page 13

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN CHRISTCHURCH

; Rejected By Labour Haters A one#©te Majority At the last meeting of the Christchurch City Council, on the easting vote of the Mayor, a motion making a special order to revoke proportional representation was carried. This motion was moved and seconded by a pair of crustaceans without a .solitary aTgument. LABOUR'S AMENDMENT. : Councillor F. R. Cooke (Labour) ! moved as an amendment that the mat.ter bo held over for eighteen months. He did so, ha said, in order to give the Mayor an opportunity by voting to indicate his attitude on the subject. Councillor W. H. Winsor (Independent) seconded the amendment. Councillor E. R. McCombs (Labour) 'suppoi'ted the amendment. If the matter was held over for 18 months the I councillors on the other side might have changed their minds. The motion had been placed before the council without a single supporting argument, and tho only conclusion she could come to was that the matter was brought forward for the purpose of securing a party advantage. The rights of the people were utterly ignored. Councillor Beaven said it looked very much as though before the pre-? sent session of Parliament was over they would have proportional representation. Councillor Armstrong (Labour)': "And that will be for party purposes, too. Make no mistake about that! (Laughter.) Councillor E. J. Howard (Labour) said if the matter was held over as suggested for eighteen months there still would be plenty of time to decide the matter. The Mayor: No there would not. If the period were fifteen months there would be. ONLY ONE SORT ELECTED. Councillor J. K. Archer (Labour) I said that at the last, meeting a majority cf the members of the council were--cot in favour of putting the alteration into immediate effect. The personnel of the Municipal Conference showed that en the first-par,t-thc-post system of voting the result was dicastrous. On all vital questions which divided the people of the country there was- no division of opinion at the conference. Only one type of man was represented at that conference. He suggested to those opposed to proportional representation that they should suggest some alternative. Councillor H. T. Armstrong supported holding the matter in abeyance for, say, twelve' months: That would do no one any harm. Councillor A. McKellar (Boss) sawno reason why the matter should he held over. The discussion at the last meeting had Shown the division of opinion. lie thought the council was doing the right thing in throwing the thing out. Councillor Winsor said that in the first-past-the-post system it was possible for a huge minority to have no representation at all.

MAYOR'S WANGLE.

The Mayor said he wished to say at the outset frankly that proportional representation appealed to him as the proper system to be used, but they had had three experiences of it In Chi-istehurch, and he had read a good deal of the effect of this system. His point of view was no different today from what it was four and a-half years ago, when he moved a motion to revoke the then system. The system was unsuitable for the return cf

a large constituency like the council of sixteen members. There was no place in the world except Christchurch where it had been attempted to return such a large number, and it was not suitable for all their elections. It was suitable only for a general • election. The object of an election was to choose people to govern, and it had been proved in Tasmania and New South Wales that proportional representation- had been found wanting and had not made for stable government. Further, the functions of a municipality were 95 per cent, administrative. He thought if there was any place where there ■should be proportional representation it was in the Parliamentary elections. Parliament was essentially a legislative body and not administrative. In matters of administration it should .not be a test of a man's fitness that he belonged to a particular party. Party should never enter into the council. They could not have good goyernment of the city if every sec- "_. stron_. enough to jcrovide ft fluota.

was to be represented. As far as the rights of the people were, concerned, they had the right to say who they ! would' elect. They were always told i that the people got the kind pf reprjejsentation they deserved. , ! | Councillor McCombs: The kind they loan afford. It is a case of money. • | The Mayor: That is a new way of doing it. In a democracy, be saidj the majority must rule. If he. had been at the previous meeting he would have voted in favour of the revocation. But there was rio need to have brought this matter up so soon. He would have waited a year longer. - The Mayor said that the proportional representation system was confusing and cumbersome. Why should the elector have only one vote, for one councillor? The election of the other fifteen councillors was just as important to him. Councillor Agar said the motion 1 brought up by'himself was put forward because the matter was fresh in the minds of the electors. His objections to the proportional representation system were the same as those f held by the Mayor, and he hoped the special order would be confirmed. LABOUR DEFEATED. Councillor Cooke altered his amendment to read that the matter should 1 be deferred for twelve months. The amendment was defeated by nine votes to eight, the division list being:— For: Beaven, Winsor, Cooke, Archer, Carr, -McCombs, Howard, Armstrong. Against: Williams, McKellar, An- - drews, Bcanland, Agar, O. W. Anderson, J. Anderson, Leadley and the Mayor. The motion was then put and carried. The special order will come .up for confirmation again in a' month's time.