PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16429, 24 January 1919, Page 8

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

, | CITY COUNCIL CRITICISED. 11 ; Mr H. D. Aclaiidj in the unavoidable [ absence of the Mayor (Mr H. Holland), v.iio had a previous engagement, presided over a public meeting held last night in the Choral Hall, called to discuss pioportional representation, and more especially to afford members of the City Council opposed to the system an opportunity to give "their reasons for their.;opposition. There was a good attendance. Tho chairman said it gave liim pleasure to preside, if; only ior the purpose of helping to dissipate the idea that proportional representation was the peculiar .property of a certain number of people in Ciiristcliurcli, and that these people, for their own aims, intended to capture the political machine. The movement was a world-wide one, and tho results of the latest held municipal elections in Cbristchurch had been to enable all views of politics to be represented. (Applause.) He was.one of those who considered it not only de r sirable, but necessary, that the people who did not share his views should have an equal sharo in tho government that he himself possessed. _ (Applause.) He mvited any city councillors present who were opposed to the system to take seats on the platform and address the meeting. Cr. J. W. Beanland responded to the invitation. Mr J. J. Dougall reforred to the proceedings at the conference between the committee sot up by tho previous public meeting and city councillors opposed to the system, and quoted a letter he had sent in reply to the Mayor's, conveying the decision of tho city councillors against holding a public meeting. [ Ip his reply Mr Dougall stated that tho I committee were surprised that on such an important question the authorities should attempt to stifle public discussion. and that those opposed to the system should refuse to publicly givo their reasons for their action. Referring to the repeal of the special order, Mr Dougall said that the supporters of the motion had been guilty of an unconstitutional action. (Continued applause.) He read a letter from Cr. J. A.—Flesher, who regretted that a prior engagiement prevented him attending the meeting. Mr Dougall. then moved: —-"That this meoting of citizens emphatically protests against the action of the City Council in repealing the proportional representation system, and earnestly urges the Council to postpone confirmation of the resolution until the views of tho olectors havo been obtained in April; and, this meeting regrets the action of the Mayor and a number of councillors in refusing to call a public mGsting to discuss this im- , portant question." ( Dr. C. Chilton seconded, and said he i did so chiefly to emphasise the fact that 1 the; retention of tho system was not - a ; party question in any' sense of the word. '

; Cr. D. G. Sullivan advanced reasons I in favour of the system. Cr. Flesher, . in liis remarks at the City Council, showed, in the speaker's opinion, that he was not at all conversant'with the principle® pf the system. It was quite possible, under the '.'first past the post system," for a result entirely different from that expected by Cr. Flesher to eventuate. The disquiet and discontent existing at present might result in a reaction m favour of the Labour, Party, and under .."the first past the post system"; it was . possible for labour candidates to secure the whole sixteen seats. The Labour Party supported proportional representation because it considered it the right system, and because it believed that every party in the community should bo represented on public bodies in proportion to its voting strength. Mr J. Koir said that he supported the system because he was a democrat. Cr. J. W. Beanland, responding, to the chairman's invitation, addressed the meeting, and said that' lie was present to vindicate himself, or - at any rate to: show that he was not afraid of the action he had taken. He had been always against proportional representation, and he was not going back one , jot on what he had done or said. The Council had done wrong in adopting the system. At the • time when amalgamation was being discussed, it was stated that the boroughs joining the citv would be ward* of Greater Christchurch, and would/ have i heir' own representatives. He knew that- in the meeting there were more partisans of proportional representation than, opponents, and he stood practically alone. But.even if he lost his seat at the next election, he would go on as he started. Ho could notlsay very much against the system of proportional representation—(laughter and applause)—but. he had always been against the, system, and was against it still. (Cries of "Why?") First, because it was cumbersome. (Dissent.) He admitted that if the system were repeHled they would have go back to the ward' system. Personally, he thought they could better work without wards. (Laughter and applause, and a voice: "Then why go back?") Concluding, Cr. Beanland. remarked that no municipality had followed the example of Christchurch and adopted the system. (A Voice: "Except Woolston.")

The chairman conveyed the thanks of the meeting to Cr. Beanland for- the courageous and straightforward way in which he had given his views. (Applause.)* ' Addresses in suppoft of the motion were given by Messrs A. W. Beaven, J. MeCombs. M.P., Cr. A. S. Taylor, Cr. H. F Herbert, and Dr. H. J. Thackor, M.P. (who also advocated ther application of the system to Parliamentary elections). The motion was put in two parts. The first portion was carried with one dissentient, and the second was carried unanimously. ' . On Mr Dougall's motion, it was decided that a deputation consisting of the committee set up at the previous public meeting (which Mr jDougall hoped would Tie accompanied by as ma,ny as could conveniently attend) wait on the City Council at its meeting on .Monday night, when the resolution repealing the system.is to come up fori confirmations