ELECTORAL BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 264, 8 November 1945, Page 5

ELECTORAL BILL

DEBATE INJJPPER HOUSE LABOUR MEMBER SAYS IT IS ILL-CONCEIVED DIRECT ACTION CONDEMNED (P.A.) Parliament Bldgs., Nov. 7. Hints of direct action to counter the introduction of the Electoral Amendment Bill were deplored by speakers in the second reading debate on the Bill in the Legislative Council to-day, but the setting up of an impartial commission to examine the questions involved, and to bring down a report on their implications was urged. It was also suggested that the commission's findings should be placed before the people prior to a referendum as to whether they unshed any change to be made in the electoral laws of the country.

Hon. W. Grounds (Auckland) expressed his deep conviction that a fatally wrong step was, being taken. The protagonists were ranged against each other on the question, and these protagonists were being reinforced by power groups outside the ordinary sphere of politics. The slogan of one man one vote, one vote one value did not represent the true position. There was no sense in that slogan unless there was equal representation for each vote, and that was where the unchallengeable claim lay for retention of the quota in connection with the electoral provisions for scattered districts. Equivalent voting power and equivalent representation were not synonymous terms. If the Bill became law there was a grave danger of a very material upset of general economic stability.

“I am not svmpathetic with any suggestion of direct action, whether from one side or the other but we must take cognisance of the deep fundamental unrest that is likely to be promoted by this legislation,” said Mr. Grounds.

Hon. T. Bloodworth (Auckland) said he had been a member of the Labour Party for a great many years, but he still favoured a referendum on the question. The measure had been discussed largely from a party viewpoint, but he considered if to be one dealing with the welfare of the country as a whole, not only for the next few" years but probably for the distant future. So far as he had been able to discern. no mention of the measure was made by either the Minister or the partv leader during the 1943 election campaign.

Hon. T. Brindle (Wellington): It has been on the platform for years. Mr. Bloodworth sai 1 the Bill, which had not been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, was a hasty, ill-con-ceived interference with fundamental laws, and the people had given no authority for the change. If such a step were taken without the people’s authority another Government might come into power and carry the matter further. The loss of civil liberty had gone on step by step. “I am one of those who think this matter should be referred to the country by way of a referendum,” said Mr. Bloodworth. “I think we should take steps now to protect our political rights, which should not be at the mercy of any political party which happens to be in power at the time.” Mr. Bloodworth urged that some impartial tribunal should look into the whole matter of the electoral laws and submit a report on those changes considered necessary’. That report should be submitted to the people and fully explained to them, and thev should vote on the question at some time apart, from election time. Hon. E. R. Davis (Auckland) said it was a pity this measure had created a great deal of dissension and disturbance throughout the country. He thought it doubtful that the Bill"would have the results at the next election that, its sponsors expected. “I am very sorry to think any question of direct action by certain elements in this country is throaten<.-.i in connection with this measure ” said Mr. Davis. “I sincerely hope that good sense will anneal to those who are Inclined to favour any such course. Hon. J. Cumming (Petone): It Is onlv a bit of bluff. Mr. Davis said that because some neop’e had shown thev could get something for themselves by direct action, it was no reason why the holders of a different viewpoint should resort to the same tactics. Two wrongs did not make one rigjit. Mr. Davis added that certain features of the Bill had aroused a bitter feeling among portions of the communitv. He agrec-d with Mr. Bloodworth's suggestion of a referendum.

Hon. V. A. Ward (Wellington) said no political party had a right to change the rules bv which members were elected, and if a/. important issue dealing with tn a electoral system had to be decided it should be decided bv the neonle who sent the rep-rc-ent.atives tn Parliament. The debate was adjourned until tomorrow.