HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5688, 6 October 1896, Page 1

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Monday, Oct. 5. AETEENOON" SiTTiNG. The House met at 2.30 p.m. NATIVE RESERVES. The Hon J. Carroll moved the committal of the Native Eeserves Act Amendment Bill, to amend the law relating to the administration of/Native reserves. After considerable discussion, the motion was agreed to. ELECTORAL. X \ The Hop E. J. Seddon moved the second reading of tho Electoral Acts Amendment Bill, to amend the law relating to the election of members of the House of Representatives. He said that the Bill dealt with a matter which had been demanded for years past, namely, one man one vote, one man 6ne registration. He said that the Bill did not propose to interfere with the votes of those who were at present on the roll on a property qualification, but no further registration would take place on a Iproperty qualification. It was provided, (however, that those who wished to change from a property to a residential qualification could do so. The Bill also provided that no person who is registered on a non-residen-tial qualification should be entitled to have his name transferred to the roll of another district in respect of a residential qualification, except ! during the time between the dissolution of Parliament and the issue of the writs for the ensuing general election. This was not so objectionable in a general election, but it acted injuriously in bye elections. He detailed the various provisions in tho Bill, and hoped that tho House would agree to the second reading. Sir E. Stout did not see why a man should not be allowed to vote in any district he liked, and he saw no harm in doing, what the most advanced ;.* Radicals, .in England advocated, the reason being that 'a man would be able to vote for the man whom ho thought should be in Parliament. He thought that the Bill should prevent co-operative labourers from voting in a country district where they had never been before. They should be sent to their ordinary places of residence and allowed to vote there. Mr Hogg defended the co-operative labourers, and said that they should be allowed to vote as they pleased and where they pleased. The co-operative labourers and small settlers were men of whom New Zealand had a right to bo proud, and they had studied political economy as well as Sir R. Stout had studied it. Thus these men were thoroughly independent, and would not be influenced in their votes by anybody. Mr Buchanan said that Mr Hogg had a very different opinion formerly when he accused " social pests " of compelling their men to vote in a particular direction. He instanced a case that occurred during the Eangitikei election, where there were only three 'settlers, and yet, by a strange circumstance, the present member for Eangitikei secured 77 votes in that locality, all of whom were co-operative labourers. He asked where those voters came from. They would never have heard of this clause were ib not that the Government had lost the Christchurch election. Mr Pirani congratulated the Premier on his change of t front over this matter, and said that three years ago Mr Seddon was one of thirty members of the Liberal Party who had opposed striking out the property qualification from the Electoral Bill, He supposed, however, that the Premier had changed in this respect as well as in many other directions. He (Mr Pirani) intended to propose several amendineuts in the Bill in committee. . .Mr, Mills said that he had always believed in pno man • one vote, but since, ttie Commissioners had ■ cut the boundaries ■ about he could not see why a 'man should not be allowed to vote in which district he pleased. They should endeavour to give reasonable latitude to the electors of the colony to record their votes as they wished. Mr Collins agreed with Sir Stout that a man should be allowed to vote in any part of the country, but he failed to see why special advantages should be given to an individual who possessed landed property. They had no right to give special privileges to owners of property which they denied to ordinary voters. He was glad that the Bill had been .brought down, as it was in the right direction. Mr Guinness thought that all the argument was in favour of providing that persons should have a residential qualification only, and he hoped that some member would propose in committee that the names of those persons on the rolls for property qualifications should be struck off after the passing of this Act. i Mr Duthie thought that the Govern. nient must be hard pushed for a grievance , when they brought in a Bill to take away . the property qualification for votes. They I could not point to case where the property qualification had influenced an s election. Property had certain responsil bilities which it had to accept, and this - small privilege should not be denied to it. I He referred to the co-operative labourers, - and said that at the last election they were l sent to certain districts in such numbers as b to influence the elections very materially, f Mr E. M. Smith supported the Bill, as i it would equalise representation, Mr Flatman advocated the claims of b shearers/and "said tliaifthey' should be put o on the same footing as seamen and 6oinj mercial travellers. Ho hoped that shearers .. and3tation hands would be afforded this 0 right. c Mr Gbeen thought that property owners a should have a right to vote in the electoe rate where the bulk of their property was 1 situated, instead of where they resided. ,f His opinion was that the Bill was brought i in in the interest of one class only ; but o whatever?improvoment3 / were to bo effected o in it would have to be made in committee, y Mr G. W. Eussell said that it was a ,f matter of regret that the Government had » not carried this principle to its logical >f conclusion. He thought that when the a Bill was in committee the Premier should, n at any rate, limit tho time during which y the property qualification should" remain c on the roll. In his opinion it would have a been wise to sweep all property qualificar- tions from the Statute Book altogether. 3- It came as news to bin? that it was a plank >t of the Eadical Party that voters should be h allowed to exercise their votes in, any :e district they pleased, and he held that it it would be fatal to the Liberal Party tc is allow wealth to transfer votes to districts '.c where their influence might be weak. d Mr Crowther said that. Mr Russell haij! >t referred to logical results, but the logical ly results of the member for Eiccar ton were it those which suited his own aims am" is objects. He (Mr Crowther) was not goinj le to give way because he happened to have i lU piece of ground on which he could grov

new potatoes, and he was not going to be tied up by ancient or modern liberation. He saw no reason for this Bill at the fagend of the session. Mr Bell hoped that the House would not pi'event men who were now on the roll on a property qualification from voting at the general election, because they could not possibly know in time the effect of legislation passed this session. Mr Hall supported the Bill. Mr MiLLAB hoped that Mr Seddon would accept an amendment, giving seamen and commercial travellers every facility for voting. Mr Masset thought that if a man held property in different parts of the colony, he should bo allowed to choose the district in which he would vote. The Hon It. J. Seddon denied that cooperative men were despatched to any districts to vote in a particular direction. (Mr G. 'Hutchison—" It is true.") He (Mr Seddon) was surprised "at any member having the audacity to make such a statement. These co-operative men were just as intelligent|as any member of the House, and they showed their intelligence by voting for the Government. ..With respect to the alterations made by the Commissioners, he confessed that he did not know "what had guided them in making some of the changes, as there was no community of interest whatever in many cases. The motion was agreed to. PUBLIC WORKS ESTIMATES. The Public Works Estimates were brought down by message from the Governor. The Hon W. Hall-Jones moved that the House should go into Committee of Supply for discussion of the Public Works Statement. Dr Newman protestedthat members had not yet had an opportunity of seeing the Estimates and they could not possibly discuss the Statement without the Estimates, The Hon E. J. Seddon said that he did not propose to discuss the Public Works Estimates that night, only the Public Works Statement. He should not go on with the Estimates till to-morrow night. Dr Newman again protested and said that the Premier was breaking faith with the House over tins matter. He had just asked for the Estimates; and had been told that they were all withdrawn, owing to a mistake being discovered in them. The Hon W. Hall-Jones said that Dr Newman was very unfair to the Premier. The fact was that a slight error had taken place. The Premier had promised to take the discussion on the Public Works Statement that night and to take the Estimates to-morrow night. , . ;' Mr Buchanan also strongly protested against the House being asked to. discuss the Public.Works Statement without beingput in possession of the Estimates, and he had just been refused a copy of them.. (The Hon E.. J. Seddon: "They are circulated now." Several members:" No.") The Hon E. J. Seddon said that he did not propose to take the debate on the Statement till 7.30 p.m. He said that the mistake made in the Estimates was in laying them on the table before the Governor's Message was brought down. He eventually agreed to postpone the debate on the Statement till 7.30. TOBACCO. The Tobacco Act Amendment Bill was further considered in committee. Clause 6 —License fee for bonded manufactory altered. Mr Duthie moved that the fee should s be not more than .£IOO, instead of .£l5O, as provided for by the clause. The Hon E. J. Seddon opposed the amendment, which was lost by 13 to 18. The House rose at 5.30 p.m.