PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2216, 31 July 1914, Page 4

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

AND EFFECTIVE VOTING. A VICOROUS SPEECH BY HON. F. M. B. FISHER.. Mr. W. A. VEITCH (Waiiganui) movec} the second reading of. tho Proportional Representation and Effeotivo Voting Bill. Eq explained, that it would be to put the Bill into operation alongside the proposals of the Government in the Legislative Council Bill. The Legislative Council Bill provided for two electorates in each island, and tho proposals of his Bill wera exactly on the same lines. If it was passed in its present form it would come into operation at the next election. Special provision was made to give facilities to country people to record their votes by means other than the ballot-box.- Similar provision was made for sick people. Further, he believed that the Maoris should vote along with the Europeans. Special representation of Maoris had been, detrimental to the Maoris. He did not wish to reflect on the hon. gentlemen. who represented the Maoris in Parliament, but-they were weak, eo far as tlieir influence went to affect legislation. _ They -had fought wel' for their constituents,, but were not able to carry .effective legislation. He believed that his proposal-contained a solution of the present social unrest. The workers had lost in Parliament because, notwithstanding their preponderance, they had failed to get proper representation:. The reform he. put forward should go hand in hand' with an elective Executive, but whether the Government ever adopted that principle or not, proportional representation would do- away with maiiy of the present party difficulties. Second Ballot Substitute. SIR "JOSEPH -WARD (Awarua) said lie did not think the people knew what the electoral position was, They had been , promised a change, and a substitute for the second ballot. Now they had the peculiar fact that the Government. was proposing proportional representation for the Legislative Council; and the Minister of Marine gave local bodies an option to adopt 'the principle. He contended the country was misled ■when the i Prime Ministor promised a ; substitute' for the second, ballot. The' .House had a right to know what was the . proposal with regard to the electoral laws. It was to be inferred that the Government ■■ promised proportional representation in the Council, and. on looal bodies,.- and shied at it when it came to the. House. fflio only thing that could be drawn fr<sm that was that the .Government was afraid to trust the people, and' wanted a system of first past jthe post, in tho hope that tliey would be able to induce their candidates in the different electorates to reduce themselves to one, and one only, and in the hope that there would be splits upon the side. He was not satisfied with the present system, but it. was clear that the Goyernment would not bring down a system of preferential yoting or proportional ''representation. He was going-to sUppqrt the Bill, although he would not support all tlie proposals • contained in it. He would support itjbjcause he was satisfied .that the country' demanded that a majority of tho people should 1 be the selectors, of the men who were going to represent them in Parliament. At. tlie same timo the country quota should be preserved .as against , that of the cities.

...: "Effrontery and Audacity." Dr. NEWMAN (Wellington East).; "The speech of tho hon. member for Wanganui is one. of the coolest pieces of , effrontery and audacity 1 havo ever 'heard. He puts it forward as a brand new polioy. Why, it is a-most servile copy of .two' Bills that he has run together which wo'-have introduced this session. We 'have introduced a .Proportional, Representation Bill for the (Jp- ■ House, and proportional representation for local elections. .It is a clean case of copy-cat." Dr. Newman went on to speak of the Bill, and said 1 /he' would .be prepared to vote for proportional representation, but he was sure Parliament would not agree to it at present. After it- had'..been. tried oh tho ' Upper House arid on local bodies, and had been tried for soveral years, the House would be educated on it, and would probably adopt some such system. Undoubtedly their electoral system waß antiquated, ' Mr! P. C. WEBB (Grey), congratulated the Government on the Bill, they /jiad brought in.for the Upper House, and supported it for tlie Lower House. In this country they wanted an ' electoral system which would give a truo reflex of the feelings of the country. Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Ljnn) supported the Bill and suggested that. New Zealand should, be made one hugd' electorate, and the'v'oting be on three tickets —Conservative, Lalwur, and Liberal. Mr. H. G. ELL (Christchurch South) 'said he would support the Bill,-reserv-ing the right .to disagree with; certain clauses in it.; He thought, for instance, that the proposed electorates wero too large. v \ ' ' ' • Unjustifiable Attack.

Mr. J. H. ESCOTT (Pahiatua) deplored the unjustifiable attack made upon the Government by the member for Wanganui. Personally he favoured proportional representation, but .he said that he found it hard to follow the mem;ber for'Wanganui into the lobhy, after tlie bitter speech he had made. . The country quota was the difficulty under the proposal, but he believed that some means could be devised to preserve the rights of the country people. : They might begin by grouping the city electorates, and leaving'the country electorates as they 6tood. . Mr. J. M'COMBS (Lyttelton) supported the Bill. -Ho believed, it would be possible to. keep tho-country quota under, a system of proportional representation. 5 Mr. J. H. BRADNEY (Auckland West) said he - w.ould object to any change in the present method of electing members to the House Mr. A. HARRIS (Waitemata) said ■that if they 1 wore to apply , the .'proportional representation to tho towns, they could not extend tho same system to tho country, without destroying , the country quota. The country seats would be so large that they would be , unwiedy. He was to support the second reading. MR. T. H. DAVEY (Christchurch East) said that the country memoers tvould take 'care that no system of proportional representation was brought in.' If such a scheme was introduced, an Elective-Executive would be necessary.

Government BUI Drafted. The Hon. F. M. B. FISHER (Minister of Marine) said that' tho first Statement brought down by his colleague in 1912 contained the.clause that the Government proposed to repeal the Second Ballot Act, and substitute somo other form.of election. He happened to havo control of tlio Department under which electoral matters were dealt with, and at the time that paragraph was penned it was his intention to introduce, as far as possible, a system cf proportional representation. N»t only that, but he had the Bill printed. A member: Bring it down. Mr. Fisher: It is all very woll to say bring it down. He'wanted to bring under their notico the fact that they ■had introduced proportional representation for the Upper House, and proposed to give all local bodies the option of adopting proportional representation if they wanted it. After tlioy wero trying to give tho most complete system of electoral reform that they had had for tho last fifty years, why should they .'•'have party;, brought into it? The Leader of the Opposition had attempted to .make it .appear ,that the Government ' had made a promise and' broken it. Mr, Russell; Hear, hear.

Mr. Fisher: The member for Avon says "Hear, hear." Let lne ask him this question; If the pa"rty of whicli ho . is a member came into power undor tho existing electoral laws, what system does he propose to put upon the Statute Book? . .Mr. M'Combs: You heard to-night. , Mr. Fisher: Do you believe what Sir Joseph Ward told you about proportional representation? Mr. M,' Combs: Yes. ■ Mr. Fisher: Then does he believe what .Sir Joseph Ward lias said on previous occasions? He repeated his question. What measure of reform would be put in place of tho existing system? Tliey knew that when last year the member for Christchurch South tried to reduce'the country quota from 28 to 15 per cent, the Leader of tho Opposition voted against 'him. \Tho Leader of the Opposition would not give up the quota. They had heard a lot about electoral reform, but let them put into words a schejne of proportional representation- which' would not do away with tho country quota. It could ,not be done. -It might be done by grouping Wanganui with Napier and New Plymouth, and grouping Oamaru, Timaru, and Ashburton. '

In a Cleft Stick.' Mr. Fisher said _ that tliey would •never get proportional representation till they could agree on the country quoth. Sir Joseph Ward had told the House that proportional representation, ! was a rotten system, and had eaid that it created, disastrous results in: Tasmania. He had also said that he hoped it would never-'be introduced in this country. _ He (Mr. Fisher) did not blame him for changing his. views if he saw fit. What he said was that if. Sir Joseph Ward cam© into power he had committed himself, unless he chose to throw it overboard, against. proportional representation, and also againstthe bare majority. Now, he saitf that he was in favour of proportionaL representation, but not ill favour of tho abolition of the country quota. He asked Sir Joseph Ward a' simple thing: Would he tell the country what measure of electoral reform lie proposed to submit to get away from the present System ? He did not see how the right hon. gentleman could devise a-system. The House was held in a cleft stick. So long as the country members. ; .were determined that they would not part with the quota, he did not See how they could get the change:'■ He challenged the Proportional Representation ' Society to devise a scheme without the country quota. ' Mr. Davey: Will the Government hring down a preferential voting system? . • Mr. Fisher: I would not personally. I think it worse than the Second Ballot and worse than the present system.- It was' all very-, well to make a party matter of it. : Mr. Davoy: I am not. doing 'that at all. ■ ' . ' ' Mr. Fisher said that some honourable membors had. done so most unfairly. . Mr. Davey: I wish you wouldn't look at me. so ,hard, The Second Ballot Failure. Mr. Fisher said.that the Leader of the Opposition introduced the ■ Second Ballot so as to secure the absolute majority. Everybody know that it wasa failure. The Opposition Party knew, that it carried all its reforms before the Second Ballot was passed, and never carried' a real reform after it was passed. ■ Mr. Ell: Take, the Statuto Books for 1910 and 1911—what ■ are you talking rubbish about? :■ V . Mr. Fisher said'that-the .honourable; gentleman could defend his party, but it was a fact that from the time the Second Ballot catno into operation the ; party started going do.wnluU, and had boon going downlulTrever'sinco.' '. " :i v'" : ; The Prime Minister:. They' have not stepped yot. . ' Mr. Fisher; I don't;,think they'have. He continued-that it', was-, useless,- 'to. throw .tlie'onus ! for. jtho'position that obtained upon the present Administration. If we wanted proofs of the ad-, -vantages of proportional representation, ho added, it was to be found in the fact that it was embodied in tho new Constitution proposed to be given to Ireland. . v.. • Mr. Massey f For thoTpper House..

A Reasonable Experiment. Mr. Fisher asked whether it was not a reasonable thing in this country to try the system in a similar way." They heard suggestions ahfiftt trying it on the dog and not on the House. The House,to his m'ind, ivas the most important elective bodv in the country, and superior to the Second Chamber. The Government was giving the country an opportunity of seeing- the system in operation. He went on to state I .that party organisation was intensified under proportional representation. This .had been demonstrated conclusively by practical experience in. Australia, This country was at least. free from' the vices of the party system as they: existed in Tasmania". The Government ivas not going to try proportional representation on the most important representative assembly, but would give, the people an opportunity of witnessing* it in operation, and after the experiment had been tried it would be for : the members of the' House to say whether they were going to adopt it or not. Honourable meinbers must not imagine,that he had been idle.in connection with this matter. Oho of the first things he did after' tailing office was to send Mr. Mansfield, the Chief Electoral Officer, to Tasmania to be present at the elections held ■ there, and report on the system of proportional representation. iHr. Mansfield came back, and he (Mr. Fisher.) was. inolined to think .that lie was a little frightened «t the mathematical side of the system. The Municipal Proposal. The Municipal Conference, the Minister added, had turned down tho proposal to. give municipalities the option of adopting proportional represents tion, not because it. was a bad- proposal, but because they did not give onough time to it to understand it. All that would be required of the elector, if tho system were adopted, was that lie should know how to, record his vote.' ■It was not Accessary that he should understand the counting, of the votes. An' Adverse Report, The; report furnished by tho Chief Electoral Officer on his , return from Tasmania, was against the scheme. Tho statement made in the Financial State-, ment was made genuinely with tho intention of bringing about this refornj, but unfortunately it had been discovered that its application in the House'' at any rate was impossible., The member for Christchurch East had said that night that he knew no Government' could put it through. Mr. Davey: I say that again—because the'country members are too strong. That doesn't affect the principle at all.' ' Mr. Fisher: Very well, then. Does the lion, member for Avon, whoreproaches tho Government for not putting tho Bill through* say that even if wo brought the Bill clown as a Government measure ;Wo could put it through? He pointed out; that in a division taken last year, only two country members on the Opposition side, Messrs. Kobertson and Poland, voted even to reduce the country quota. It was impossible to. take away the quota, but in the matter of electoral reform the Government had taken the country a few steps in advance. Mr. Webb: You have, committed tho country to proportional representation. Mr. Fisher: Is not that a step iii advanco? , Jlr. Wobb: Yes. ! Mr. Fisher,said that he had told tho House last -session that the only, measure of proportional representation possible as things was to group five seats in each of'the cities. What [ was immediately, said?, Tliab itwajs "the

Fisher Salvation Bill." It was said that the Hill was dovised, not because lie was interested in proportional representation, but because it was the only chance lie had of getting in. He regarded proportional representation as a genuine reform, and if it were possible for his .party to put this Bill through'ho would like to see it dono. But lie knew it could not bo done. He again asked the Leader of the Opposition and tho member for Avon what system their, party would put upon the Statu to Book in the event of their boing returned to power ? B Neither Sir Joseph Ward nor his colleaguo replied-. Mr. Fisher said that they did not intend to be drawn, for tlie reason that their, party could not agree upon any new system. Tlie discussion had been interesting,' and later on, when -tho scheme of optional proportional, representation for local bodies came down ho hoped the House would put the Bill 011 the Statiito Book,- so that local •bodies could give a demonstration of the working of the systom; 'Mr. Fisher said that ho believed the Christchurch City Council'would put tho system into operation at'once. • Mr. M'Combs said that it would. Mr. Fisher y If they are gajno to put it into operation and give us I 'a demonstration, why should they not have the opportunity? Like unto the Chameleon. Tho member for Avon had supported most things in his time, and he haid a most varied political record. Sir Walte.- Buchanan: Endless variety I _ Mr. Fisher: Endless variety I And like the chameleon, he iB ever changing his colour. - An hon. member: What about yourself? » Mr. Fisher: When I see a good argument and I see a reason for changing my views I change them. Mr. Brown: About the freehold? Mr. Fisher: And about beer, too. He wished to say in conclusion, he said, that tho Government had done the best they could:from the pomt of view of reform to give this country'something it-never had given them an opportunity of trying the system -of proportional representation in respect of tliet Upper House, Tthd in respect of •local elections. He hoped that the result of . the experiment would be to lead public opinion and make possible reform in tho House. . ' . Mr. Fisher advocated the retention, of the-country quota, saying that although lie was a city member, lie believed country members would be utterly unfaithful "to yield the 28 per cent, quota;

Nicknames. Mr. G. W> RUSSELL (Avon) said he was glad ho was not known throughout the country as "Rainbow."; , An hon. member: "Rickety." (Loud laughter.) ', Mr. Russell was evidently ruffled. He said that after repealing tho Second Ballot the Government had - no better plan to suggest than first past; the post.They had never before heard that tho country quota had stood in the way of tho Government's bringing, down proportional representation. 'Yet tliey had agreed to it in regard to the Upper House. , % An hon. member: Because thero is no quota. : . ' 'Mr. Russell: They are not asking for a country quota for the Upper House. Where is their consistency or their-sin-cerity? 'He did not say that the Second Ballot was without its faults, but it did send men into Parliament with on absolute majority. The Government was attempting to strangle tho democracy by methods that were devious and disconcerting in their character. Their action was characterised by tho hollowe'st 'insincerity. '. . - .

Death by Misadventure. '■ Mr. Veitoh - replied, briefly. , . "When the ' question' *-was* put •; it ,* appeared that '.the second, reading would be agreed to on the voices, but Mr. M'Combs gave his voice :' ( No," evidently to force;a division. When the tellers _ wero named for the "Noes," in tho division, ■ Mr. M'Combs was overlooked, but Mr. Webb,, who had supported tho i Bill, but who had" called "No"'to force tho division, had to toll for the Noes ivith Mr.-Bradney. ' Afterwards' it appeared that Mr. Webb's going over to the Noes killed thcßill, for the second reading was defeated by 28 votes-toj27'.• _ 1 Tlu> House then rose.