UPPER HOUSE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 70, Issue 257, 17 August 1950, Page 4

UPPER HOUSE

PLEA FOR EXTENSION AMENDMENT DEFEATED (P.A.) . WELLINGTON, August 16. Urgent pleas led by an avowed National Party Supporter, the Hon. Sir William Perry (Wellington) for a vote in favour of extending the life of the Legislative Council until June 30, 1952, in order to enable a thorough investigation by a joint committee of both Houses into possible alternatives and to ensure the traditional Second Chamber during the Royal visit fell on the staunchly abolitionist ears of all the newly-elected members of the Council to-night.

Sir William’s amendment was to the Legislative Council Abolition Bill, which is in its committee stage. The amendment to defer extinction was Idst by 28 votes to 18, and the date set out in the Bill, January 1, 1951, stands part of the Bill. The clause was passed, and after progress had been reported to the Speaker, the Council adjourned until to-morrow afternoon. Several further amendments to the only other clause in the Bill are expected. Sir William’s amendment followed : immediately upon the division on an amendment moved by the Hon. W. Grounds (North Auckland) that the Bill should not become operative without the abolition issue having first been submitted to a referendum of electors. This amendment was defeated by .29 votes to IS. “I am certain that all members of this Council have been astounded at the uneasiness, indeed, alarm, evident throughout the country at the proposal to abolish the two-chamber system of government now that they have an idea of the dangers inherent in this Bill, especially without even consideration of an alternative,” said Sir William in moving his amendment. “We have unconsciously, perhaps, rekindled that smouldering fire which causes the electors instinctively to recoil from any sudden great change in our parliamentary institutions. The people of this country are bewildered and nonplussed because over the last three weeks they have realised the importance of the constitutional issue at stake here. “It had been said that a substitute or an alternative must be found,” he continued. “A joint committee must, could and would find an alternative or a way out of the constitutional difficulty which had arisen. It had been a bombshell to members to hear that agreement had been reached between the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. S. G. Holland) and 'the Leader of the Council l the Hon. W. J. Poison) that if the joint committee’s finding concerning a substitute was acceptable to the Government it would be embodied in the National Party’s 1952 election platform. There had been no thought in any member’s mind that suen a course would be taken. All had expected that legislation regarding an. alternative would follow the present session. “The complete absence of a. second chamber from January 1-, 1951, until the 1952 election was never contemplated by any member of this Council or by the public in New Zealand,” said Sir William. He hoped nobody was committed to vote for such a situation. With the exception of the Hon. Mrs A. L. Weston (Wellington), all the newly-elected members in their speeches had indicated a desire for a second chamber of some sort. The amendment, he said, would give the joint committee time to function properly. There was too much legislation forthcoming to permit the committee to do much this session. Sir William also mentioned the curious situation that would occur when their Majesties visited New Zealand and the King was asked to open a Single Chamber Parliament, and if Mr Holland or the Minister of External Affairs visited England Rightist eyebrows would be raised at them for having abolished the Council. “This Council has never suggested an amendment unacceptable to the Lower House. Now is your chance to pass an amendment which just may not be acceptable,” he said. “This Council has been called a rubber stamp for whatever Government is in power. Now is the opportunity to prove that the Council is not a rubber stamp for another place.” He asked all members to vote according to conscience.

More Amendments Pending “We "propose to go on moving amendments because we believe that we, the minority, are right,” said the Hon. D. Wilson (Wellington), supporting the amendment. “Our heads are bloody but unbowed. This amendment does not kill the Bill, but only delays its operation for 18 months.” He did not believe it. was the Government’s intention to replace the Council with any second chamber at all. He knew that a large number of National Party supporters and members of the Government were opposed to a singlechamber Government. The Hon. J. Roberts (Wellington) said it was strange that an Irishman—himself—should have to appeal to people descended from English stock to show loyalty to the Throne to the extent of retaining the traditional Second Chamber until the royal tour. He suggested that Mr Poison should approach Mr Holland to see if he would agree to the postponement of the Council’s extinction until June, 1952, if the amendment were lost. A further suggestion from the Hon. J. T. Paul (Wellington) said that the operative date of the Bill should be the subject of a proclamation instead of being a definite date so as to facili- ! tate the deliberations of the joint committee which has been proposed to seek an alternative Second Chamber. The Leader of the Council (the Hon. , W. J. Poison) said that legislative pro- 1 vision would be made if. necessary for the Council members on the committee to sit after the proposed date of abolition of the Council, December 31, 1950. Referendum Suggested The Hon. W. Grounds claimed that the Government would be eternally discredited if it did not seek the opinion of the electors on “this fundamental constitutional issue” when a referendum had even been held to decide whether off-course betting should be instituted. . “A referendum is the funk-hole of a Government that has not the strength to stand up to decisions which it knows it should make,” said the Hon. H. G. Livingstone (Christ-

church). “It is a refuge of a Government that will not face up to its responsibilities for fear it will lose votes.” v Sir William Pe'rry opposed the Amendment, saying that issues such as gaming and military training should not have been put to the people. If the question at a referendum were “are you in favour of the two-chamber system in New Zealand?” one might support the referendum idea.