PREFERENTIAL VOTING

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 9 August 1928, Page 2

PREFERENTIAL VOTING

AND THE LICENSING QUESTION

MR McCOMBS’ BILL DEFEATED

(By Telegraph) (From “The Mail’s ’ Parliamentary Reporter).

WELLINGTON, Bth August

The second reading of Mr J. McCombs’ Preferential Voting BilL was lost in the House of Representatives tonight by 25 votes to 36. Tiie mover said it was proposed that the system be applied only when issues were submitted to the pimple and not to Parliamentary elections, and ho submitted that it would permit the people to, give themselves a two-issue ballot paper if they, wished it. Members, pledged to- a two-issue ballot paper, to be consistent, should support the measure, which offered tlie best solution of the licensing question and would be fair to all.

In opposition to the Bill Mr G. W. Forbes (Huruimij objected to the’principle of a bare majority on a question such as licensing. The Hon. A. D. McLeod declared he had always opposed the principle of referendum, which he described as weak. Members had been sent to the House to decide questions of the moment themselves. lie favoured a straight out vote on the licensing issuo subject to a majority to ensure permanence. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr 11. li. Holland) said the Bill made no provision for referenda but merely sought to provide a safe method of majority 1 ale on certain questions. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) objected to - the Bill as a machinery measure designed for the purpose of referenda. J; . , \V. ■

Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lyttelton) referred : to the present State control issue, which he declared gave the voter no opportunity to express his preference. He contended that, none would suffer unfairness under the proposals. Mr (W; D. Lysnar (Gisborne) castigated the Bill as farcical, cumbersome and intricate in its working. Mr W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said that members were just beginning to realise the subtlety of Mr McCombs’ speech last year when they had been led to believe it did not mean half as much as it really did. Nothing had been, said an to how prohibitionists or continuance Supporters would exercise their preferences. Tho Bill either applied to licensing alone or else was aimed at referenda, for which Parliamentary provision had not yet been made. In the latter event it was an attempt to legislate for the future. The Bill was defeated on the second reading by 36 votes to 25. The division list was:—

For (25): Bartram, Bellringer, J. M. Dickson, Forsyth, Fraser, H. E. Holland, 11. Holland, Horn, Howard, J. A. Lee, E. P. Lee, McCombs, McKeen, Martin, H. G. R. Mason, Parry, Ransom, F. J. Eolleston, .Savage, Sidey, Stewart-, Sullivan, Sykes, Waite, Young. Against (36): Atmore, Bell, Bitchen-, er, Biuldo, Burnett, Campbell, Dickie. J. S. Dickson, Elliott, Field, Forbes, Glenn, A. Hamilton, J. R. Hamilton, Hawlcen, Henare, Hockly, Hunter, D. Jones, W. Jones, Luke, Lysnar, McLen nan, McLeod. MacMillan, J. Mason, Reid, J. C. Rolleston, Samuel, Seddon. Smith, Uru, Veitch, Walter, Wilford, Williams.