THE SECOND BALLOT BILL

Otago Witness, Issue 2845, 23 September 1908, Page 38

THE SECOND BALLOT BILL

GAG CLAUSE RETAINED.

CFrou Ottr Own Cokrespont>e:n't.) WELLINGTON, September 15. The Council put in a long day's work on the Second Ballot Bill to-day. The " S a g ' clause was again the principal subject of discussion. The speakers against the clause were the Hons. Samuel, Carncross, Callan, Paul, and Jones, while it was defended by the Hons. J. R. Sinclair, Kelly, M'Cardle, and Baldey. Mr Sinclair's chief point was that the prolongation of a contest would be physically too much for many candidates, lie also adduced company meetings, including those of newspaper proprietors, as precedents for silence on the part of the pres«. Mr Carncross eaid it was on the grounds of public interest that the newspapers objected to the section. He thought the press would raise no objection to a subclause providing that they should take no election advertisements between the ballots. Mr RIGG .- Why not- prohibit the publication of the papers altogether. Mr Garncross went on to insist on the injustice of allowing candidates no means of refuting election canards. He feared that a conversation at a cattle market, if a little crowd gathered Tound a candidate, would lay him open to prosecution. He could not accept the concession now offered on section 19 by the amendments that had been circulated. The Hon. Dr Findlay appealed to the Council to recognise that the House would not pa&s such a clause without very good reasons. Every man who voted for a clause in the Souse might have to act upon his belief. Let them consider what would occur in one of the large electorates — say Wakatipu or Westland — where the second ballot would take place 14 days after the first. In the interval, if there were no restriction, each candidate would at once begin an active canvass. The man who had rich friends, who would lend him their motor cars, would have a huge advantage, and the man wiho had no such advantage would be handicapped. The more rioh friends a candidate had the better his chances would be, ako the shorter the period the more actute the contest would be, and the more effective the aid of wealth when one candidate was a rich man amd the other a poor man. Would that be fair? Mr Jones: That would be co in any election. Dr Findaly : " I admit that the conditions of the first ballot are not perfect." The reason he had given was what induced the Government to propose the first part of the clauses. It was idle to deny that wealth spelt help, however much they might legislate against corrupt practices. Th§ Government had tried -to neutralise the effect of wealth. The first thing it did was to prohibit candidates rushing about and addressing meetings, but if it allowed a wealthy man to go to a\ newspaper and say, " Put in this manifesto. It may cost £50, I don't oare_if it costs £100," and if that newspaper circulated over a wide electorate, would not that be as effective as a speech. Mr Carncrose's suggestion that advertisements should be prohibited would be useless. Who was to say that a local, a leader, or an address was an advertisement? He undertook to say t/hat there were three or four lawyers in tharfc building who would be prepared to prove the contrary. If the rich man had the columns of the newspapers open to him would not that be a violation of one of the fipst principles of our democracy — namely, that every man should have a fair chance of securing the suffrages of the electors? Membeis who had been through elections knew that the papers gave them a column and a-half for their first speech, .t,nd drib I'and1 ' and drabs afterwards, but if they paid they could get an in exten.so report every time.. — ("Heai, hear,'') Mr Loughnan : Entirely wronfj. Mr Jone.-* : It's quite correct of some papers. Mr Luke : I had to pay. Dr Fjndlay : And I had to pay, and I may tell you it didn't do any good — (Laughter.) A rich man coufd get his speech published in extenso, with an introduction about the large audience and the number of ladies present, and all the rest of it. That wa.b all because thp man had rush. Were the press prepared to say they would refuse £100 for publishing such reports ? Perhaps Mr Jones could answer that question. Mr Jones : I cannot. Dr Findlay said that if a candidate had plenty of time he could afford to be more or less independent, but not so if the time was short. In his own case he had only 10 days, and he knew that he wanted all the newspaper space and all the publicity as to his movements that he could get. Section 19 was intended only to prevent personal criticism and personal advocacy, and to give all fair play. He would be prepared to delete the word " article " if that was necessary. If it could be shown how the first ballot could be similarly safeguarded he would agree to do so. Any general discussion of political questions and anything that did not take the shape of an attempt to promote or oppose a particular candidate would be permitted. Dr Findlay urged the Council to pass the clause in the interests of true Democracy. During the evening the Council, in committee, deleted the proviso to clause 2, that a majority of 500 Bhall be deemed an absolute majority, Dr Findlay having supported an amendment to that effect. Matters then went fairly smoothly until clause 19 was reached, when speech after speech was delivered against it by Messrs Carncross, Longhnan, Paul, Jones, and Jcnkinson. The clause «as letained by 17 vote? to 11. Towards 11 o'clock, Mr Paul waxed

satirical, and said it only remained to pro. hibit all gatherings of more than half a dozen people during both the first and second ballots. "Even fishing parties would have to be barred," interjected an hon. member. "Would you disallow funerals?"' queried Mr Jones. "No," said Mr Paul; "I do not see any method of prohibiting funerals." — (Laughter.) " There will be one presently," retorted Mr Jones. The "Free Speechers" continued their fight on the other sections of this clause, and towards midnight were still going strong. The interest in the proceedings was shown by the fact that no fewer than three Cabinet Ministers were present in the gallery, together with some members of the Lower House, while the Press Galkry wae not sufficiently large to accommodate those who wished to report the proceedings. At 15 minutes past midnight we had the unwonted spectacle of the " Lords " still sitting. The Lower House had adjourned, and the Speaker and a number of M.P.'s trooped into the gallery of the Upper House. Dr Findlay ■ moved his addition to clause 19, enabling the newspapers to publish Any statement of fact if that statement is true in substance and if the publication thereof is for the public benefit. At 20 minutes to 1 Mr Rigg was speaking on theNabsurdity of the clause. If the gag was to be applied let it be applied impartially and effectively by prohibiting the publication of any newspaper between the first and second ballot. Of course Mr Rigg was speaking sarcastically. Mr Paul, Mr Carncross, Mr Longhnan, and some others made a heroic stand for the freedom of the press. Mr Carneroaß eaid he believed the Attorney-general in his heart of hearts had an absolute contempt for the whole thing. He said it would mean the ruin of the small journsds, because inadvertently they might be let in for actions thftt they could not defend. However, he was inclined to accept the Attorney-general's amendment, as half a loaf was better than no bread. Dr Findlay's proposal was agreed to. CHRISTCHURCH, September 16. The Lyttelton Times this morning concludes a short article on the Second Ballot Bill thus -. — " But if all the newspapers in the country had been in the habit of prostituting their columns to wealth, that would have been no -excuse for the Government attempting to deprive them of their right of free speech for a single minute, and it may be as well to let the Government understand at once that whatever Parliament may do with the objectionable clause the newspapers will refuee to submit to its restrictions. They have duties to the public to discharge, as well as rights of their own to maintain, and are not to be silenced by threats of a paltry fine. If the Government likes to invite the struggle it -will find the newspapers fully prepared."

(Phom Our Own Cohrespoitdent.) WELLINGTON, September 16. The local newspapers (including the Ministerial journal) continue to be very severe upon the Government regarding its attitude on the Second Ballot Bill. In an article this morning, the New Zealand Times points out that the " gag " has failed in connection wih the gambling evil, and shows that, notwithstanding the suppression of news about betting in the newspapers, betting has actually increased eince the act was passed. The Times gives nguifts to prove its statement. The gambling evil, it adds, nourishes most where it is unseen, and the curtailment of the liberties of the press in this respect, as in others, can onH result in eeriouis harm to the community.