The Referendum Bill.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 254, 31 October 1904, Page 4

The Referendum Bill.

THIRD READING CARRIED. MINORITY REPRESENTATION. WARNING! FROM THE PREMIER. A NOX-I'ROURESSI\ E HOUSE. In replying to the third muling of the Referendum Bill in the House of Representatives on Thursday niglit, the, Premier said the bill had had a Somewhat chequered career, and he dosiivd to place on record .what had occurred to bring this yue9bion of the referendum to its pnpsent stage in Parliament. In 1894 a Referendum Bill was introduced by Mr o'Rtyan. and the second reading was negatived. In 18G5 it was again itti'oduced by Mr O'Regan, and lost in . committee. In 1896, Mr O'Regan once more introduced it, but no further action was taken, in regard to the measure. In 1897 it was introduced by Mr Hall-Jones, with no further action. In 1899 Mr Pirani introduced it, ,but it want no further. In 1903 it was introduced by himsfeif,' passed, and rejected by the Council. Thus the people oi the colony and the members of the House could not say they did not understand this or what was sought to be accomplished by its provisJons. Ho could not understand the inconsistency that had been shown by mangr members on this question. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the bill was defective, (but, sti'l, improved as it emerged frotti committee, and yet declared that it waff worthlesson a former occasion he had voted for the bill as it was sent to the Council, lie (Mr Seddon) maintained that the bill was not improved in committee, I'fand if he had to admit some amendments with a view to getting the bill to its present stage, he had done so as a matter of expediency. . If, he had .fcird his way they would ; have had the bill sent to another place giving the direct reference and initiative to the people. At the present time they bad the most "Conservative House they had had sSnfce 1887. That was the position ih • \vhich the country stood. Where did the consistency of members come In ? He had the names of members who voted for th« second reading of this ibiil, a nd who now termed it an abortion." The harshest pos- * ipje termp had been applied t 0 the bill by members who had agreed to the second rpadiqg, and who thus approved the policy of the bill. The . people knew that the minority re--"liresentfitiah they 'now had was not true representation. Pressure of public opinion had convinced members during the last few davs that it would be wire to vote for the third reading of this bill, which they had made every effort to destroy. The question of, town versus country had been brought up during the debateas though in a bill of this kind such a question should be introduced. One of the reasons adduced against the bill was that the country settlers would' njc/tl have the samei advantages in Voting on a referendum, but he maintained that the country people wofild just as readily go to the po'ja as those living in the townß. If he bad admitted the amendment in regard to a straightout referendum on the Dible-in-schools question in this bill, it . Wonld Wot have > served the - purpose sought to be attained, for all sorts of proposals would have to be admitto£'jW.ttey would still have been bill, This bill simply provided rimrffiinery f o r the referendum,-'. and it was. In his opinion, wise to reject the amendment. It had been-'said that he was opposed to Bible-reading in, scjbools, but h e had said on that question they were justified—aa well as on any other la r B8, ; .question affecting the social w-elt-beSug of tjie people—in giving the people ail opportunity of voting upon it: Such a referendum Was provided for in this bill. He warned this 'PeAjile that thie House ivaa not progressive, .in': the direction of giving to the people i wlurt they demanded, and they would have ia all possibility, before many, yean were over a repetition 0 1 what happawd, 1890. ,He Would say clearly that the masses were not satisfied. Tho measure now before the i ;nOt go as far as the great majority gf the electors desired. At all events, by- giving this referendum they dkjtwp thrijngs ■' referendum would be a. and by submitting these Questions to the electors they would be educating the people. The result would be an educated public opinion. Mtembers knew, as time went along, the great oressure that was ibrought to bear on the Government, and unless they met witty<sffH9iftb]e limits that which was demanded by the electors, there Would be trou)ble. In regard to Biblereading in schools, there was at the present time machinery for this purpose. In schools in the Auckland district. Scripture was taught before and after hours, and he would ■Jikethe s&me advantage taken of the present facilities by other ; tions. juj taken by the Bishop of Auckland. : He said in all Sincerity that he wanted those whose duty it i was to do so to see to these matters, c; otherwisa injury would happen to the young. At oil events, let the people have an opportunity of voting on this question, and let them no longer ask another place to throw out this measure. The third reading of the bill was carried by 41 Votes to 24.—New Zealand Times.