PARLIAMENTARY.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3941, 16 August 1881, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

(Per Press Association.)

Wellington, Yesterday

The House met at 730.

In the matter of the Legislative Council and the amendment of the House Mr Dick moved that the House insist on its amendment in the Gaming and Lotteries Bill, and Messrs Montgomery, Bowen, and Dick were appointed managers to draw up the reason.

THE REPRESENTATION BILL

The debate on the Representation Bill was resumed by Mr Gibbs, who opposed the bill and supported Mr Gisborne's amendment, without any feeling of antagonism to the Government. He felt bound to defend to the utmost the political existence of his district, which was threatened with extinction, tie considered the bill was one to throw the Government of the colony into the hands of the provincial district of Canterbury. Canterbury and Otago were to have 45, and all the rest of the colony only 46. He suggested that the boundaries of his district should be extended, not that it should be wiped out altogether. It was one of the oldest districts in the colony, and the oldest goldfield, and it had derived no Hdvantage from public works expenditure. It really had less community of interest with Motueka, to which it vpas to be attached, than it had with Wellington.

Mr George oppo-ed the bill. It was not one to give representation on the basis of population, or else the Maoris would have been taken into account. They were British subjects, entitled by law to be on the Electoral Roll. He held that their special representation should now be abolished, and they should be treated as ordinary electors. Were this done, the balance of power between the Islands would be very little disturbed. He also objected to towns being cut up into single electorates, as encouraging plural voting. Under sued a scheme of representation as proposed, the .^'orth Island would have no chance in the distribution of future loans, the seat of Government would probably be moved to Canterbury, a'jd the direct steam service be given to Otago.

Dr Wallis expressed qualified disapproval of the bill, and unqualified disapproval of the amendment. He advocated a complete system of equal electoral districts, and strongly supported the system of single electorates. The bill proposed a most unfair preponderance of members to the South. It this bill was .passed, the .North would demand separation.

Mr Sutton supported the bill generally, although he wished it had not proposed to increase the number of members at present iv the South, which was entitled to a .preponderance of political power, but in due tinje no doubt the turn of tberJNJrfjjfcfclWhWbuld come. He objected to Wairoa being thrown into Auckland, and would'have no objection to leaving another member to .Nelson. He approved of sinele electorates.

LATER,

£;• ■; Wellington, This day. I'bj. 1. Mr Shepherd objected to a population •basis. The bill seemed to him like the beer tax to have been framed on an objectionable American mode. If the North once gave the great preponderance of power to Otago and Canterbury as proposed, it would never regain it, although he believed that the North would ultimately support a far larger population than the South. Separation would be tbe natural result if the present measure was carried.

Mr Pyke objected to population as the basis of representation. They should not have departed from the principle laid down in the Constitution Act which was the number, not of people, but of electors, that was, really adult males, under one electoral law. He did not approve of any increase of numbers in the present case under the bill. The Otago goldfields would lose one member, and the Westport goldfield another." He would oppose the bill and vote for the first part of Mr Gisborne's amendment, but not for the second part, as he approved of single electorates.

Mr Weston opposed the bill as unfair to all portions of the colony except Ota}>o and Canterbury.

Mr Pitt said no doubt the Government had a majority to force the bill, and therefore he did not think it worth ar^uiug about. He very strongly objected to the bill, as it gare undue preponderance of power to the towos at the expense of the country, and to Otat;o aad Canterbury at the expanse of the rest of the colony; those districts possessing almost half of the whole of the representation could do as they liked. He was certain they would remove the s >at of Government, restore the monopoly of the land fund, and in case of any future loan secure the expenditure pretty well iv their own boundaries. The principle of representation should be toe number of eleotors, and, in their iaterest, he did not believe there w<ts any public demand for this injustice proposed to be done to Nelson in depriving it of representation, as Nelson members bad never abused their position. He did not think the Government had really considered the full elFecf, of the measure, as it would undoubtedly promote separation. He hoped that they would be satisfied with the second reading, and treat the bill like the Crown and Native Land Bill, letting it stand over for a new Parliament.

Mr Dick pointed out how very mired parties were over the bill, The Q-overn-meut regretted the unhappy lot of Nelson, but could not see any way to relieve it. The House need not be afraid of Canterbury and Otago: as a rule they did not work well together. There was always more affinity betweeu Otago aud Auckland. J3ut whatever political power was givpn to Qtago and Canterbury, he was sure they would use it wisely an 4 well, not for their own benefit, but foi? the good of the colony at large. Until the natives obeyed the law, and held their land by Crown grant, they had no claim to representation.

Mr Murray expressed disapproval of single electorates ; and Mr Harris said, if they gave all the voting power to the §outh Mje money would certainly go there also,

Mr Wood intimated that on the motion for going into committee he would move an amendment that the special Maori representation should be abolished, and the representation be determined on a population basis, including botli Maori and Europeans. He had uo sympathy with the cry raised by the Nelson members, and did not think there was any sincerity in the anxiety they professed for the North Island interests. He was not at all afraid of the cry of separation, and he denied that the two Islands were antagonistic : they had never been known to vote as Islands against each other. He strongly urged the claims of natives to be considered on the population basis. Messrs Lundon and Colbeck also strougly advocated the right of the native population to be considered in determining the representation on a population basis.

Mr Levistam moved the adjournment of the debate, and the House rose at 1.15.