ELECTORAL LAW.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18222, 5 November 1924, Page 9

ELECTORAL LAW.

BILL PASSED BY HOUSE. COMPULSORY REGISTRATION. (PBE33 AS9OCIATIOS TELEOfcAM.) WELLINGTON". November 4. Tn the House of Representatives this afternoon Mr Massey, in moving the second reading of the Legislature Act Amendment Bill (Nc. 2), said the measure contained three important provisions. In the first place compulsory enrolment was insisted on. The responsibility for tins was placed on the clecj tors themselves, in the pact the metb- i ; ods adopted to secure complete enrol-, ! ments had been and J there hud been complaints c-i.-. | election. j ! Persons were required to register ; ! within four month.- of the passing <>t j I the Act or alter U< date on which j thev become quuli-Vd to he roisterer; I as electors. Tor neglecting to register j a fine of os was provided ior tho li:>[. j offence, and *>.- I'«<r any subsequent: conviction. Klcclors must notit> J changes of address when they moved j within the vlei-urnte lor which they j were registered. Similar fines were pro- j vidod for neglecting to do so. but iao-; ure in notify chav.ee of address would : not disqualify an < >-t.or fmm voting. , | Such a prevision 'va> n safeguard t'" ; j anv injustice that niH'ht be don-.' to an elector. Temporary absence frf>ni '<< do-- ' triet would not be a di.-r|tialiu>ati<>n unless an oler-for bc-amo a roso-boi* m another "leotorr.to or was qualified */' , become OT registered. If there was r-v. pbienr-r. of thrnc months it would '«> . the duty of an elector to notify the R""istrar. There was provision for the nrtification of the deaths of electors bv tho Registrar of Death?: alsrv for th* notification of the marriages of femn'e electors sc that the rohV corM hf» amended. Section 9 nrovided for the | compilation of new rolls after the com- : meneoment of the Act. and the next I section provided for the abolition of the j existing rolls, the closing dp to of the j new rolls and the printing thereof. T n j case of a by-election there was a mach- ' inery clause to enable l7ic Department i to appr.int one Registrar to_ act for : more* than one electoral _ district. Tn j the four principal cities ft was propos- | ed. for general information and admin-1 i=trative purposes, to groun tbe city electoral offices under one officer. It was proposed to amend Section 52 of the Legislature Amendment Act, 101". j bv repealing sub-sections- 3 and 7 deal- j ing with the removal of the names of | non-voters at the General Election i from the rells. The existing method ; had been found to l>e unsatisf actorv and unworkable. Section 13 made provision for a more convenient and effective system of absent voting. It was not applicable tc seamen who would vote under the existing special provisions in the Legislature Act. Section 14 provided for two classes of persons voting by declaration on election day, and reoealed the previsions in section 13 of the Expeditionary Forces Voting Amendment Act of 1919. Section 15 made the residential period in an electoral district three months instead of one month as at present. The Discussion. Mr T. W. Rhodes regretted that there was no adequate prevision in the Bill to enable invalid persons to vote. The Hon. D. Buddo made a similar appeal. The Bill was read a second time. In Committee Mr McCombs said he j the absence of anything in the nature of proportional representation in the Bill. The recent election in Britain showed the need for some reform, but bad as things were in Britain they were worse in New Zealand. Mr Isitt welcomed the Bill with gladness, because he believed it would contribute towards a puro rcll. He was afraid that attempts to enable invalids to vote would result in extensive impersonations. Mr Holland contended that once an elector's name was on the roll it should net; be open to challenge, except through the medium of criminal proceedings. Most of the changes in the Bill were needed, but he regretted the absence of proportional representation. His party would move an amendment in that direction as the Bill proceeded. He claimed that the time had arrived when there should be printed a roll for Maori elections. Mr Veitch 6aid the disappointment of the Bill was that there was no electoral reform in it. He deplored tbe absence of all reference to proportional representation. It was unfortunate that Parliament was controlled by a group who refused to bring the electoral law into line with the needs and wishes of the people. Several other speakers also advocated the reform of Maori elections. Mr Massey, in reply, said alterations had lieen made in the law regulating tho Maori elections some years ago, but it was fcund impossible to carry them out. One of the difficulties was that most Maoris had several names and could go on several rolls. It would be impossible to check them. He personally favoured endeavouring to give sick people votes, but the greatest objections came from medical men who did not wish to have patients worried by politics. He had not brought drwn proportional representation because he was not satisfied that it would prove satisfactory. It was not a perfect' system, and he did not think that they would ever get a perfect system. Ho did net propose to bring down another FJectoral Bill this session, but there might be one next year. Mr Wilford said he wanted to see proportional representation given effect to, but he could not move tt' include it in this Bill because it involved an appropriation. Next session the Prime Minister might put a straightforward motion before the House and let the House give a straight-cut exSression of opinion on it. If that were one he would be satisfied whatever the result might be, but at present all they could do was to remain dissatisfied with tiro present system. Mr Massey, in reply, said the suggestion mado by Mr "Wilford was net a bad one.- Next session he might adopt it. Ho did not think there was a majority iu the House for proportional representation. Mr G. W. Forbes: What ahcut the first-past-the-post ? Mr Massey: I think the majority prefer it to proportional representation. Evening Debate. When the Houose resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr P. Fraser objected to the proposal to extend the residential qualification from one month to three months, contending that it would be injurious to workers. Mr Massey, in reply, said that any elector who shifted his residence could .•ote in his old electorate if he had not been resident three months in the new district. However, if members during the recess fcund that there were injustices or anomalies, he would be prepared to consider further amendments next session. Mr McCombß moved a lengthy amendment to give effect to proportional representation, presenving the country quota and limited to tho 76 European constituencies. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart raised a point of order that the amendment

I (Continued at foot of next column.) j

would involve a charge upon the Crown and therefore could not be moved by a private member. He said that at any other time he would not have raised the point, but in the dying hours of the session the House could not afford the time for an academic discussion on proportional representation. The Chairman of Committee upheld the objection, ruling that the amendment involved an appropriation of public money. . , . ~ Mr MeCombs questioned the ruling and asked that Mr Speaker be railed ir to reviow it. This wbr done. Mr MeCombs contended that elections would have to be held whether under proportional representation or not. The elections in Tasmania and in the City of Christchurch were no more costlv than elsewhere. The Hon. W. Downic Stewart and Mr Massey contended that the expenditure under the new system would bo enorMr Speaker said the whole question was whether or not the present expenditure would be increased. Mr D. G. Sullivan said his experience as a candidate for the Christchurch City Council was that proportional representation was EHo cheapest system. Mr Massey said there was no comparison between an election in Chrjstchurch City and over the whole of TSew Zealand. The head of the Electoral Department had just informed him that it, would eost £IO.OOO to bring this system into operation. Mr Veitch pleaded for a generous interpretation of the Standing Orders to enable a member of the House to exercise his constitutional rights in placing such an amendment before the House for its decision. Messrs Armstrong and Edie argued in favour of proportional representation. The Hon. W. Dowme Stewart pointed out that the licensing poll was to b& taken in the ordinary way. That meant that there must be combined rolls for the Parliamentary election and single rolls for the licensing poll. This meant increased expense in printing. Mr MeCombs contended that no new rolls would be required. The old rolls could be used for combioed districts just a« at present. After further debate Mr Sneaker said he had to deal with only one phase of the question: Did the amendment involve increased expenditure? The most authentic information he had on this point was the statement of the head of the Department, passed on to the House by the Prime Minister, that the preliminary expenditure on proportional representation would cost at least £IO.OOO. There were other minor aspects of the case, but that seemed to govern the position, and he must rule the amendment out of order Th<" Committee stage was then completed and the Bill read a third time and passed.