LATE PARLIAMENTARY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 8226, 23 August 1905, Page 5

LATE PARLIAMENTARY.

Electoral Bill

Continuation of Debate

[The first portion of Parliament will he found on page I?.]

Mr \V. W. Tanner (Avon) objected to the five years' census, and argued that if a ten

years' census was good enough for the

British Islands it was good enough for us. dfc He advised the Government that after the taking of the next census, when the redistribution of seats was made, the work should be carried out by commissioners well informed, with some common sense, and a knowledge of the Colony. These virtues the former commissioners evidently did not have, because the result of their work was nothing but an idiotic Chinese puzzle. Mr R. McNab [Mataura) also considered that we ought to have some better system of fixing up our boundaries. He, with other members, objected to the dropping of the clause dealing with the purging of the rolls. No Electoral Bill would get through the House that did not provide for the mechanical purging of the rolls. No person should be allowed to get on the rolls at a date later than the issue of the writs; the time should be fixed well before the election when the rolls should be closed. He would not like to see Maori representation abolished. It might be possible to have them represented in the Legislative Council, but if the Natives were placed on the European rolls, it might be possible to return as

many Maori members as now sat in the

House, and instead of the Native question being postponed until the end of every session, it would become a live question, in which every member would be interested. He did not think there was the corruption in elections in this Colony to warrant half the restrictions imposed.

Mr E. G. B. Moss (Ohinemuri) considered it a hard principle to allow an Act to be passed which could not be generally circulated at the time of its enforcement, and in this case it would be wanted, in view of the election, at the very hour the House rose. He believed that the time had arrived when the system of voting in regard to Maori representation should be changed, and the Maoris given the advantage of voting by ballot, instead of the present unsatisfactory

system.

Sir Joseph Ward, in reply, said those who contended that the system of purging the roll was done away with by this Bill seemed to overlook altogether the fact that the Bill created an electoral department, well-

organised. After every election, naturally,

the returning officers would send to the ■k chief department marked copies of the rolls, showing every person who had voted, and it would be the duty of the chief officer to ascertain for ■what cause a person was removed oil the roll, whether by transfer or death. But what was the advantage of a system that on the one hand erased the names of people, and on the other hand put them on again ? He had pointed out in his opening remarks that he was quite prepared to accept any reasonable, proposal for the improvement of the Bill, and this fact seemed to have been overlooked by those who had criticised the measure. The object of the Bill was to ensure that every one entitled to vote should have an opportunity of voting on the day of the election, and the proposal to allow those who did not get on the roll prior to the nomination day the right to exercise their vote was only carrying out a general idea prevalent throughout the Colony that no one should be deprived of the privilege of voting. This was to provide for those who inadvertently failed

to get their names on the roll. He could

not understand why members should urge •the postponement of the Bill, seeing there Was such a general wish for uniformity in regard to our electoral laws. The fear of partisan persons going round and not putting certain people on the roll entirely disappeared under this Bill, which sought to provide that everybody entitled should be put on the roll. So far as the complaint in regard to the abolition of the half - holiday on election day was concerned, as the law now stood a half-holiday was mandatory, and the employes received no pay for it at all. An employer might close his factory and turn his employes out for the afternoon without pay. The proposal contained in the bill, that an employer should give his employes a fair opportunity of voting on election day, without a half-holiday being declared, came on behalf of the employe's, who had in the past been compelled to take a half-holiday, and who had had their pay deducted.

Al The second reading of the bill was carTied on the voices.

The House rose at 12.35 a.m: