ANOTHER LONG DISCUSSION.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14833, 26 November 1913, Page 11

ANOTHER LONG DISCUSSION.

PREFERENTIAL VOTING.

(rKESS ASSOCIATION* TFXEGBAM.) WELLINGTON, November 2-3.. , Shortly before th(* dinner adjournment in the House this afternoon Sir Joseph Ward moved that the Legislature Amendment Bill be re-conimitted for the purpose of inserting a clause providing for preferential voting. Hβ said the proposal had boon submitted to a tired and jaded House in the early hours of the morning, and he thought it should receive more mature consideration. The Prim© Minister said they had the second ballot forced upon them by Sir. Joseph Ward, and he thought they should hesitate before they adopted another system on his recommendation. On the House resuming at 7.30 p.m., the debate on Sir Joseph "Ward's amendment was carried on by Mr Russell, who demanded a more scientific method of securing majority representation. The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher declared that the preferential system gave sorn.electors two votes, and his side of the House believed in one nian one vote. Proportional representation was out of the question, because it could not be. established unless the country quoU was abolished, and it was perfectly evident that the country ouota could not be abolished in that House. In hie opinion the solution of our electoral difficulties was proportional representation in the cities. The Hon. D. Buddo contended that the device of the Government was now perfectly clear; they hoped to win in the country on the qnota and to sweep the cities with proportional repre&enta-" tion. The Government was committed to 6ome substitute for the second ballot in their Budgets, and if they voted against Sir Joseph Ward's amendment they would be stultifying themselves.^ The debate was continued until 0.90 a.m., when Sir Joseph Ward's amendment was rejected by 33 to 24. THIRD READING. The motion for the third reading was then taken. Sir Joseph Ward denounced the method that had been adopted to foreu through tho House a Bill upon which the people had never oxproswd an opinion, and which was contrary in its TiatuTo to all the avowed professions of the GoTermnent, who had on several occasions intimated that some substir

trtite would be provided for the second ballot. .Mr Maesey denied that tho Govern- . went had broken its pledges. Ho was not going to nun in wjie.ro angels leareu t-o treat!. Ho. knew that tho proposal of the Government ■ was not ported, but tJiey had to tinci something better. It had been suggested that, proportional representation should bo applied to the cities, lie did not know that this was not th«\ best suggestion that could bo made. Too methods -' adopted by tho Opposition to block the Bill were" unparalleled, and , therefore they need not bo surprised "if unusual moans were adopted to meet that obstructiou. Tho second ballot wa.s expensive and demoralising, ami he was only sorry that ho did not toko time . last session ami repeal it then. If preferential voting was so g<»od, why did the Commonwealth of Australia not adopt it when it was in operation in sump of the Australian Ho was proceo<ling to justify tho action of the Chairman of Committees in break? ing down the stonewall when ho was stoppedjbv the timo limit. Mr Russell maintained that tho repeal of the second ballot was entire);? due to thejdefeat of tho Government at the Gnr>y by-elootion. The debate was proceeding, when the Telegraph Office closed at 2 a.m.