Protracted Debate On Country 'Quota' Bill

Northern Advocate, 1 November 1945, Page 2

Protracted Debate On Country 'Quota' Bill

CP.A.) WELLINGTON, This Day.

Public interest in the Electoral Amendment Bill, which provides for the abolition of the country quota and the revision of electoral boundaries on the basis of adult population, was shown by the fact that, almost every seat in the public galleries was occupied when the second reading commenced in the House of Representatives last night. On the motion of the Prime Minister (Hon. P. Fraser) urgency was taken. The Opposition early showed its decision again to contest the bill vigorously by forcing a division on this motion, but it was passed by 39 votes to *34. The House then settled down to a protracted debate, but, as this is the third occasion on which the bill has been discussed, many of the speeches contained litte lthat was new. Government members withdrew from the debate shortly after 10.30 p.m., when the broadcasting of the House ceased, and Opposition members were carrying on at a late hour. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland) asked whether in view of the importance of the debate the whole of it could be broadcast, but Mr Fraser said that the House would go off the air at the usual hour of 10.30 p.m. Moving the second reading of the bill, Mr Fraser said it provided for the division of the country into equal electorates on the basis of adult, population. The justice of retaining the

existing boundaries for no-license districts would be evident to all. The bill simplified the procedure for transfer from one electorate to another and also simplified postal voting by enabling a postal vote to be cast with only one visit to the electoral centre, instead of two. “Conceived In Sin’' Dealing with objections which had been raised to the major provisions of the bill, Mr Fraser said it was interesting to realise, that .the Representation Act of 1881 was introduced with only the scantiest warning to the country by Sir John Hall. However, it was not introduced without a keen fight, which cut right across party affiliations as they then existed. The Prime Minister quoted the late Mr D. Stewart, father of Mr W. Downie Stewart, as saying that the country quota was conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. In 1888 Sir Robert Stout introduced a bill to abolish the country quota, but there was a stonewall and* the only result was to reduce the quota from 25 to 18 per cent- However, an election followed and in 1889 Sir Harry Atkinson introduced a bill extending the quota to 28 per cent, which had obtained since.

The counti’y quota was the last attempt of landed interests ■ to offset the principle of one man, one vote. Mr Fraser asserted. Men such as Sir George Grey and John _ Ballance did not hesitate to oppose it. If the present Opposition put up the same fight to retain the quota as was put up in 1881 and 1889 to establish and extend it, Mr Fraser added, then the House was in for a most interesting time. Opposition Voices: But there was no gag then.

Knew How To Fight

Mr Fraser said that in 1889 there was a real fight. The galleries were cleared for a week and even Hansard was shut out. They knew how to fight in those days. Mr E. B. Corbett (Oppn-, E'gmont): But now we have the gag. The Prime Minister said it had been suggested that the Government had changed the rules during the game, ‘but in 1931 the party now ill Opposition had changed the rules and started a new game.

Mr Fraser said the closure, which was introduced in 1931, was made permanent in 1932. What was right for a Conservative Government should be right for a Labour Government. However, when the closure was introduced the then Speaker saw to it, as would the present Speaker, that members had an opportunity for reasonable debate. It had been alleged that the present Government was acting unconstitutionally, but there were numerous precedents of a Government bringing down an important measure and later asking the country to express its. opinion, Mr Fraser stated. That was what Atkinson did when he introduced the present country quota without consulting the country and what was good enough to usher in the country quota was good enough to usher it out. The life of Parliament was extended in the same way in 1931. Mr D. C. Kidd (Oppn.. WaitakiD But‘you opposed it. Mr Fraser: Sure, and I am not com.' plaining that the honourable member is opposing this bill. Let him fight it and I will respect him, although I do not agree with his outlook.

, The Dark Ages

The Prime Minister continued that the country had started off with the adult population as the electoral basis. Mr A. S. Sutherland (Oppn., Hauraki): That belongs to the dark ages. Mr Fraser: And the honourable gentleman still believes in them. (Government laughter.)

Time Extension Opposed

Mr Fraser, was declaring that there should be no difference between town and country when the bell rang to indicate that he had five more minutes’ speaking time. Mr. H. E. Combs (Government—Wellington Suburbs) moved an extension of jhe Prime Minister's time, to which the Opposition protested and Mr. Fraser, concluding, said the fact that he was not given an extension whs proof that the Opposition had grasped what he was trying to points out. He claimed that no section of the country was going to distate to the Government. (Opppsition laughter). No section was going to move the Government by its tnreats. To use the country’s economy for political purposes was rebellion. (More Opposition laughter). The country quota, declared Mr. Fraser, was never right, was fundamentally wrong, was the antithesis of democracy and had been on the Statute Book too long. The farmers had done wonderful service, but that did not mean that they deserved 28 per cent more value in voting, nor was the country returned soldier entitled to greater voting power than the town returned soldier. He then moved the second reading of the Bill, “hoping that the blot on the Statute Book win be removed forever.”

Panic Demonstrated

Mr. Holland said the Government demonstrated its panic by taking urgency, which meant that the public would be locked out from the debate when the House went off the air at 10.30. He thought, however, that the country bad reached the conclusion that the Prime Minister had been making heavy weather of the debats on what was a far-reaching part of the Government’s legislation. Mr. Fraser had not given one single reason for the abolition of the country quota. There was widespread interest in the debate, perhaps not so much in the provisions of the Bill, but in. the motives of the Government. The legislation had been designed to benefit one section of the people only —supporters of the - Government, Mr. Holland continued. He considered it was the intention of the Government in introducing this legislation to save its political "skin. The Government had lost its grip on the public, was losing ground steadily and there was every indication that it had run its course. There was a deep sense of justice in the heart of every New Zealander and an equally deep resentment against mis-use of injustice. He always thought it cheatiq# to play a fifth ace in the pack and this was the Government's fifth political ace. Mr. Holland traverseu clauses of the

; Bill. He said the electoral system of i'the country had always been highly ■ satisfactory. So much so that today it I had become part of the unwritten | constitution. What did one vote, one | value mean, he asked, when it was ! realised that the -member for Southi ern Maori, with 741 votes of 1120 } votes cast in the last election, held a ! seat and the member for Remuijra had i 11,000. He believed there was. no mandate for the Government to justify this legislation. Mr. Holland gave an emphatic denial to a statement by the Minister for Health that the National Party desired to reduce the numoer of seats in the House to 40. ' ■ . G ,

Appointing Friends There was provision in the Bill for the appointment of two Government nominees to fill vacancies in the Representation Commission, stated Mr. Holland. It was typical of the Government to appoint its friends. He

believed the Government was making the biggest mistake of its life when' it refused to include families in the) electoral population. There was a big; swing against the Government. Mr. A. S. Richards (Government— Roskill): What are you complaining about then? • , The people of the Dominion hated anything that suggested cheating or unfair practice, said Mr. Holland. That is why townsmen as well as countrymen opposed the Bill. Mr. Holland challenged the Hon. E. T. Tirikatene (Government—Southern Maori) that if he was nbt prepared to apply the principle of the Bill to his own people he should abstain from voting on its application to European electorates. (Opposition “hear, hears.”) The country quota had been adhered to in recent years to ensure preservation of the balance between population and the production of those primary commodities which were the basis of the Dominion’s trade. Mr. F. Langstone (Government— Waimarino): You are romancing. Mr. Holland was convinced that the abolition of the country .quota would adversely affect production for export. That would be a bad thing for the country, particularly for the manufacturers who were wholly dependent on the Dominions foreign trade. The Minister for Finance during the day had announced the repayment of £23,000,000 worth of loans overseas, but the country could not pay off 23d. but for its primary production. The true test of the country quota was whether the system had worked. The fact was that under this system production had expanded and prosperity increased. Mr. A. G. Osborne (government—, Onehunga): In spite of it.

Suited Dominion

Mr.'Holland replied that the country’s progress proved that the system suited the Dominion’s economy. .. ’

I-Ie declared that the Prime Minister did not actually believe in one vote, one value. In Mr. Fraser’s own case, more votes were cast against him at the last election than for him, but he had not refused the emoluments of office. Another instance of the fact that one vote, one value did not apply to the business of the House was connected with the decision to send a force to Japan. If that proposal had been submitted to a free vote of members of the House, said Mr. Holland, the force Would have been & voluntary one only. Let the Prime Minister deny that if he would. The Minister for Health (Hon. A. li. Nordmeyer)' said that no one in the House had objected more in the past to extension of broadcasting hours than Mr. Holland himself, yet the Leader of the Opposition now complained that the hours were not being extended. Mr. Holland also complained that urgency had been taken but he knew that otherwise the measure could be held up and discussed for weeks on end. He complained of the time wasted in the House, but frequently members of the Opposition had persisted in repeating threadbare arguments when the Government was ready to proceed with the next business. ' <Opposition laughter). The Opposition pretended to be actuated by the loftiest motives, but the fact -was that some members opposite were angry because they, knew the Bill meant fewer rural seats next election, Mr. Nordmeyer said the knowledge that there would be fewer rural members in the next Parliament explained the antagonism to the Bill.

Heat Reason

Mr. W. Sullivan (Opposition—Bay of Plenty): That is the real reason for the Bill.

Mr. Nordmeyer continued that Mr. Holland had spoken of the injustice which was being done to farmers, but it myst be remembered that the farmers’ produce reached the world markets only with the co-operation of thousands of workers in the town and country. Moreover, it was not correct to imply that farmers were synonymous with the rural population. There were thousands of workers in rural areas, such as miners, timber- workers, railwaymen, freezing workers and others, and no protest against the Bill had come from these workers. The Opposition was merely doing as its predecessors had always done—opposing every measure for reform in this country or out of it. Mr. Nordmeyer claimed. It sought to prevent ordinary citizens from having a just say in the affairs of the country. It was not the rural dweller as such, but persons with property interests who opposed this measure. The same antagonism was -evidenced when the Local Polls Amendment Bill was'passed last year. It was in line with the political philosophy which opposed every extension of the franchise to the ordinary citizen. Interests Safeguarded

Mr. Nordmeyer said the Constitt> tion Act of 1852 provided for equal electorates on the basis of the number of electors in each. The ostensible reason for changing the original constitution was the difficulty of maintaining contact with rural constituents, but that reason no longer obtained. There had been no town versus country feeling in the House where the interests of the rural dwellers had been safeguarded in spite of that preponderance in recent years of urban members. If the Opposition fostered a feeling of hostility between town and country it might bode ill for the interests the Opposition claimed to represent. The Minister asserted that no objection could be taken to the method of appointment to the boundary commission. The appointments would be referred to Parliament.

Miv Sutherland: But that is no good. You will have your orders from the Trades Hall.

Mr. Nordmeyer said it would be time enough to object to appointments when they were announced. It was no good hurling across the House suggestions that the commission would be packed with Labour supporters. One of the existing members was an avowed National Party supporter and if there was any suggestion of sharp practice he could resign and make his position clear.

Mr. Nordmeyer said that in spite of all the whistling the Opposition was doing to keep up its courage the electors would endorse the Bill at the next election. If the Opposition would accept the principle of the Bill the Prime Minister would say something on behalf of the Government on the question of Maori representation. Unrest, Disquiet Mr. K. J. Holyoake (Opposition—, Pahiatua) said he had received many' telegrams protesting abainst the Bill. Mr. J. Thorn (Government Thames): Organised. The country, particunlarly rural areas, was seething 1 with unrest and disquiet. Mr. Holyoake continued. The rural people were suffering from a feeling of oppression and the town people from a sense of disgust at the Government’s attitude in introducing the Bill as it had done, without a mandate. The country quota was not peculiar *to New Zealand. No Government had the right to alter the constitution without consulting its masters—the people—except in time of national emergency. . In this case, said Mr. Holyoake, it was a political emergency, for the Government’s life was at stake. The power of a political majority was being used by the Government to retain 1 office. The Prime Minister at the San Francisco conference had fought for the rights of minorities. Would he apply the same principle to "tllis Bill? Mr. Fraser: Exactly the same.

Mr. Holyoake: Will the Prime Minister agree with the principle that members of the ’jiVofld Security Council should.be elected on the one vote, one value basis? Mr. Fraser: Every country has the same voting power. Mr. Holyoake considered the Bill was a coolly calculated blow at the political status of the country people.

National unity was essential, but this was not the way to secure it. The Government went on with courage born of desperation. The Bill was the very negation of democracy. The Government knew there were more children in th e country than in the town,"which accounted for the proposal to alter the population basis to adult-basis. The Government saw a political advantage, and in spite of protests in the past, it was now throwing the babies overboard, said Mr. Holyoake. Those who were to play their part in years to come should be considered. The debate was continued until a late hour.