Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CONSCRIPTION OF ELECTORS PASSES.

AFTEiRj SOME KEEN CRITICISM. ' WELLINGTON, Last Night. ( An interesting discussion on the Legislature' Amendment .Bill (No. 2) took place in the Legislative Council to-day, when some members took strong exception to the inclusion in the measure of a provision for the compulsory registration of elections. Hon. J. Barr approved of the proposal to extend the residential qualification from one month to three, but described the compulsory registration proposals as ridiculous. He asked if the forms which had to be filled in would have to be called for, at the office of the Registrar, or would they be available at the Post Offices? Sir Francis Bell: "At the Post Office." Mr Barr said the Bill pre-supposed that the people of the country were deeply interested in elections, but that was not the fact. Still, anyone who, four months after the passing of the Bill, had; not complied with the Act, was liable to be fined in Court. It was not the amount of the fine that was objected to, but the disgrace of appearing before the Court., Sir Francis Bell: "On a level with having your chimney on fire." Mr Barr: "Then it might as well be knocked out of the Bill." He remarked that Sir Francis Bell had said that people could not be forced to vote, but if voting was ' compulsory, electors could make their papers t informal. Sir Francis Bell described this as going to the poll to fire a blank cartridge. ,

Mr Baj-r' said the compulsory registration provision would be a source of great annoyance and he would move in committee to ,have the provision deleted from the Bill. It could not, be said that the insertion of this provision was an electioneering dodge on the part of the Government —quite the reverse—but with some official there was a maggot somewhere arid the official had not much foresight. In committee, Mr Barr. moved to delete the compulsory registration provision. Hon. J.MacGregor agreed with Mr Barr. ;The provision, he' considered, was; not; only illusory, but very mischievous. There were bodies like the licensed trade and the prohibitionists, who,would never relax their efforts to get people to the poll. He was convinced it would be impossible for the Government to punish offenders under this measure; because they would be so numerous thjt they would fill the. gaols; Sir Francis Bell said the matter wasone which concerned almost solely the House of Representatives. It would be a very dangerous thing \ for the Council to exercise its undoubted right and strike the clause out.'Apart from that, he did not agree with the arguments of the opponents of the clause. Compulsory registration was not an' invention of New Zealand; it was in force in other countries.- He' thought the provision would be effective, because there was a vast-major-ity of people in this country who wanted to comply with the,law. He thought.the provision would have, the effect of obtaining belter arid more accurate results. , After this was passed, a new roll was to be made and it was to be founded on something like an accurate list of people entitled to vote. This was the only way tomake the roll approximately accurate. It was no argument to say.that because the experiment might prove ineffectual; the clause should be done away with. Hon. G. J. Garland spoke in favour of passing the Bill as it stood and Hon. J. B. Gow also advised the Council to leave the Bill alone; Hon. Sir William Hall-Jones thought it did not matter whether the clause were passed or not. The provision would prove useless and costly. Mr Barr: "This is the time of the session when hasty legislation vcomes down and if there is -.one piece of hasty legislation it is this Bill. This will be a rod for the Government's back." On a division, the provision was retained by 14 votes to 6, the division was: ** Ayes (14): Hons. Bell, Campbell, Clark, Fleming, Garland, Gow, Grimmond. Izard, Lang, More, Patuki, Nikihana, Snodgrass, Stewart. Noes (6): Hons. Barr, Cohen, HallJones, MacGregor, Mclntyre and Thomson. The Bill was then passed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SNEWS19241107.2.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Shannon News, 7 November 1924, Page 1

Word count
Tapeke kupu
686

CONSCRIPTION OF ELECTORS PASSES. Shannon News, 7 November 1924, Page 1

CONSCRIPTION OF ELECTORS PASSES. Shannon News, 7 November 1924, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert