Parliamentary Affairs.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 1 October 1913, Page 2

Parliamentary Affairs.

The Second Ballot is doomed. Just what will take its place remains to be seen—probably some form of preferental voting or proportional representation with the single transferable vote. Mr Russell tried to draw Mr Massey on the subject in the House on Tuesday, but the Prime Minister contented himself by informing the member for Avon that an opportunity would be given the House later on to repeal the Second Ballot. The hon. gentleman must, however, wait and see what was to replace it. It is noticeable that Mr Russell never scores at Mr Massey'_ expense, although he repeatedly tries to do so. Captious criticism of Government measures is still the order of the day, so far as the Opposition is concerned. It is strange that Liberal measures should be accepted with such ill.grace by Liberal members of the House of Representatives. Political jealousy is probably at the root of the business, for they simply cannot bear to think such measures emanate from the Reform Government, which, although labelled as Conservative on every jk>B-« sible occasion by members of the Left, is proving by its actions and policy measures to be even more Liberal than its predecessors in office. The Land and Income Assessment Amendment Bill, which was read a third time in the House on Tuesday, has bee nunder fire at every stage. It has been denounced by Mr Gf. W. Russell and other Liberals as a sham, a snare, and a delusion; objected to because, al* legedly, it merely relieved people al* ready enjoying "comfortable incomes," while "leaving the masses untouched," and criticised in hostile form at every stage. Yet not a single member of the Opposition had the courage to vote against the measure, although on- the third reading stage the member for Stratford. Mr. Hine, and the member for Mataura offered to set them the example of voting against it, the former because he regarded the principle of the Bill as unsound, and the latter because he thought the Government should not reduce the taxation for men who earned over £300 a year while it left out those who were earns ing loss,