EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9458, 2 July 1896, Page 6

EVENING SITTING.

, Xfat House resumed at 7.30 ■• mckctivk KXKotrnvß. Major STEWARD moved the second reading of the Elective Exeoative Bill, to provide for the election of the Executive Counoil. He said the Bill proposed to enact one of the most important reforms that had ever been submitted to the Legislature, and he claimed for it calm consideration, not only on sis own behalf or on behalf of the constituency which he represented, buc on behalf of the majority of the people of New Zealand, whoae views and aspirations he believed it represented. Be had introduced the BUI for the last two sessions. On the first) occasion the Bill was defeated by six votes, and on the second by eight, • ad en , e *ch occasion it was only defeated by the Ministers and their whips. To show how the Bill was regarded in the country, he stated tht»t every Liberal organisation bub one had declared in its favour, and he believed everyone of the Ladies' Political Associations were favourable to it. In addition to that, the had received sheaves of correspondence asking him to bring the measure forward again on the eve of the general election to give the colony a chance of expressing its opinioa on i*. Xfee present mode of forming Ministries he considered very unsatisfactory. Hβ had heard a Minister on those beaches who had **Mi office for years say that the first duty of the Government was to preserve its own existence. Did that show, a proper spirit •I patriotism? He thought not. The evils of the present system of appointing Governments were many. After reading several extracts in favour of his proposal, *»•■»** the remedy for the present state of !? in 3?'S? , P ro *Med »n hie Bill, whioh gave the deliberate choice of the Executive to Parliament. He did not propose anything •hat bad not been tried before, ac the system well in North America, and had been in force for fifty years in Switzerland Kith the utmost success. Hβ explained the details of the Bill, and said it was a Liberal measure, which was supported by all the Liberal organisations in the colony. If the Bill did not pass now, the day was coming *vhea it would pass, as the country was strongly in favour of the reform.

Mr SEDDON complimented Major Steward on the able speech he had made, ont he had wearied the Home by the quotationshe had made from the apeechea o! antiquated men whom he (Mr Seddon) declined to accept aa authorities. He read •wnethy extract from a speech made by Bit Robert Stout in favour of party Government, and Mid that although Major Steward had introduced this Bill there was no •tronger party man in the House than the member for Waitaki. What, therefore, was the use of Major Steward quoting Dr. Hodgkineon, when they had auch a speech aa that he had quoted from T He preferred in this matter to take Sir Robert Stoat for his guide rather than Dr. Hodgkinson. The electire ayatem had proved an utter failure in Switzerland, and if it were passed into law here half a dozen men would band together toobtaio office. Major Steward seemed to imagine that only aix members would be nominated for seats in the Ministry, but he (MrSeddon) thought sixty would be nominated for the position and there would then be fifty-four disappointed members. (Mr G. W. RUSSELL—•« We are all that now.") The hon. gentleman could speak for himself. A Prime Minister under this Bill would have ao power whatever, and there would be no end of difference on cardinal points of policy. No Ministry, in fact, could exist which was elected by a Bill of this kind, and no Ministry would receive the respect of the House under it. No reason existed for the proposed change. The presentGovernjneat wero keeping pace with the times, and weie progressing as quickly aa public opinion i required. He (Mr Seddon) had been accused ok being autocratic, but that was ai! in the interests of party. The proposed Bill would take away the right of Hie people, because it deprived them of the power of electing their own Government. Mr SAUNDFKS aaid it waa evident the Premier felt that ho bad a very bad case io

hand. Mr Seddon had referred to the unsatisfactory speech m«de by Major Steward, but he (Mr Saundere) thought that speech was very much better than the Bill, which was a poor thing, and did not go for enough. He hoped they would be able stiortly to pass a much better one. The Premier had told the House the elective system had failed in Switzeriand.but he (Mr Saunders) altogether denied that. On the contrary, from the moment the elective system wa* pat ia force that country went ahead. He spoke strongly in favour of the system, and quoted from well known authoritiei to the effect that the Swiss form of Government was the most perfect and very economical. It cost people there only a farthing par head, whilst the Government in this colony cost Iβ per head. The Premier had just told them about all the Liberal measures paised by hie Government, but he (Mr Sauuders) contended that the real Liberal measures were passed by Sir John Hall. (Mr SEDDON—" Only four.") Yee ; but those four were better than all chose passed by Mr Seddon siuce. The Premier had, io fact, stopped where Sir John Hall had left off. (Mr SEDDON—" Who gave you woman franchise?") Not the Seddon Government certainly, but Sir John Hall aud himself (Mr Saunders). He felt convinced that if this BUI did not pase now it would pass sooner or later. He referred to the Legislative Council as being at present most unsatisfactory, and said it would continue to be so as lonjt as it was nominated by the Government ot the day. If it were elected by local bodies, as in Switzerland, and consisted of only fortyfour members against 145 in the Lower House, it would be more effective. He supported the BiU, and hoped it would pass its second reading. It would require some modification in Committee, so as to bring it nearer to the system in force in Switzerland, where the people were thoroughly contented and happy under an elective system. A country must be well governed where three millions of people lived contented on a million and a half acres of arable land, as was the case in Switzerland. Mr EARNSHAW felt sure that, as Mr O'Reean had moved the Ministry in favour of the Referendum, they would also move them in favour of the Elective Executive Bill. The Premier bad epoken in hie usual autocratic manner on the Bill, but if it passed they would see a great change in the Treasury benches. Those of them who objected to the present costly system of government were convinced that, if they put the Elective Executive Bill on the Statute Book they would ba studying the wishes of the people of the colony. Hβ asked the members of the Liberal p»rty what part they had in shaping the laws of the colony. They m*ght nieec in caucus, but the moment they left the caucus the Premier was master of the situation, and it always was the same under their present system. The whole thing was a jumble and a sham, and no membar could tell what part he had taken in passing the laws brought before them. Under the elective system, they would h»ve party government, but it would be a very different sort from the present autocratic system. They had now no democratic government, but rather an autocracy, and the occupants of the Treasury benches cared more for office than for the good of the colony. Every member of the Liberal party was elected three years ago to support a nonborrowing policy, but who could say that the pledge had been kept? Why, they had plunged deeper and deeper into debt, and yet the Liberal party thought they were in touch with the country after they had falsified every election pledge they had made

Mr W. HUTCHISON was not in favour of the elective Executive proposed by Major Steward, bat he was in favour of an elective Executive for all that. The Government should be a Committee of the House, appointed by the House to carry out its behests. He had no doubt Dr. Hodgkmson was an amiable member of the Houae in former years, but he was not aware that that gentleman was an authority on the elective system. He felt it woe not ao much the House of Representatives that guided the policy of the country at present a& the Government. The action of the

Premier of this colony was playing into the hands of those who supported the elective system. All Governments for some time

past usurped functions that did not beloiig to them, but especially the. present Government. He did not bo much blame the Government as tbeir weak-kneed supporters, who refused to think for themselves. No Government had a right to sit on the benches unless with the consent of the majority of the House. Mr O'REGAN was glad the Bill had been brought down on the eve of a general election. He thought what had trauspired daring the recess afforded abundant reasons for making the proposed change, and members who had no party purposes to serve were becoming disgusted with the present system. Mr Hall-Jone3, before he became a Minister, was strongly in favour of this Bill, and he (Mr O'Regan) [ hoped he would show by his vote now that he still supported it. He regretted to say that Mr Seddon's speech did not bear the hail mark of sincerity, but the Premier changed his views so frequently that it was not surprising. Only two years ago the Premier had described the Referendum j Bill as a most dangerous measure and yet it ! was now one of the policy Bills of the Government. He wai, at the same time, pleased to see Mr Seddon and his colleagues capable of improvement."" Id was nob illiberal to have Ministers elected by Parliament. What he objected to was a system which compelled men to vote against their convictions. He believed a large majority of the people iof this colony were in favour of the Bill, and that the minority at present in the House on the Bill would be converted into a majority after the next election. Mr Q. W. RUSSELL would not have ■poken that night were it not for the lengthy quotation of Sir Robert Stout's speech given by the Premier. He (Mr Russell) would quote from a speech made by Mr Seddon til teen years ago, in, which he had piaised the Hull Government for treating the West Ooast fairly, and said that in future he

(Mr Seddon) would follow no man blindly, but would vote in the interests of his dis-

trict aud the colony. UL'hat was the opinion of Mr Seddon before he became a Minister, and if he had carried out that promise he would have beeu a much stronger mau than he was> Ha differed from the Premier ou

certain points, and should do so still.

action of Mr Seddou, such as instructing the Whips not to invite him to a caucus, or depriving him of any position wlScb he had held on Committees (an action which he regarded as puerile and childish) would do him (Mr Russell) any harm. As for the Elective Executive Bill, he thought the country was asking for it, and the feeling in its favour was steadily growing. He admitted that under Party Government reforms had been made, .and the Seddon Government were responsible for some, reform. But with the exception of the advances to stttlere every Liberal proposal had either been initiated or

brought in thoae years during which Mr Ballance Has head of the Government. The

only thing with which Mr Seddon'e name

was identified was the cooperative system, which he believed was originated by the present Premier, and he was entitled to

whatever credit was due for that ayetem. The labour legislation was identified with Mr Reeves' name, and Mr Seidon was

really nob identified with anything except that which he had referred to. He denied Mr Seddon'e assertion that this Bill would

destroy parties. He believed that within

the next three or four years there would be

a great change in parties. It would be absolutely impossible, U9 contended, to re-

turn a Conservative party when the Elective Executive became law, the Liberal senti-

ment was so strong in the colocy. That being the case, he could not understand

why the leaders of the Liberal party should oppoie the Bill. Mr HALL-JONE3 said the House would recognise he had hitherto supported this Bill, and he ahouM C.j bo on the present occasion. He agreed, however, that the present BUI waa far from perfect, and he thought M»jor Steward might have evolved something better. He did not ajrree with the proposal that the members of Executive

shouM be submitted to the Governor for his

approval, and altliongh there were certain detaiia of the Bill of which he didn't

approve, something practical might be evolve 1 out ot it.

Mr HALL oppessd tha Bill. Mr BUDDO thought they were grun«j to have a better division on" the Bill "ban before. It was not with the desire to hurt party Government that ha supported this measure, but hi considered the billf ar woic valuable than the referendum.

Mr COLLINS Hail previously voted against the Bill, lm~ >vonld not do so on the present occasion. Ho believed it w« absolutely impossible to aboiith P*rLy Government, but lie bid come to the conclumn that it was capable of a greas deal of improvement. The Premier denie.l that be was autocratic or overbearing, bat he (Mr Collins) feared there was only too much troth in that charge. He thought they would agree with him that when the Premier exercise 1 his "great power to oust a private member from a position for which he had proved his thorough fitness, it was time members exercised iudepeodence in matters of this kind. It wai as a protest against conduce of this kind that he should not oppose this BilL Mr BUriON bad always expressed the opinion thac party government was s failure, and his constituents had warmly supported him on every occasion wiieu he expressed that opinion. Mr Collins had given a very good reason for abolishing paaty government, namely, that it gave one man too much power in the House. They all knew the Premier was a strong man, bu», beiogso atronp, it was necessary to keep him in check. .It seemed to him mo3t inadvisable that the whole Parliament should accept only what measurer were approved by the Premier, but if the Bill were passed it would do away with that- state of things. Sir ROBERT STOUP. referred to the quotation the Premier made from a speech made by him in 1884, and said he felt pleased he had done so, as it might improve Mr Sneddon's political education. He held that they could not get rid of party organisation, and there was not a word in his speech of 1834 about an elective Executive. The Premier had changed his opinion on many great questions of the day. What was the change that had taken place in his attitude over women franchise ? Did the Premier hold the views he formerly held

on the Alcoholic Liquor Bill and other measures? As to the Family Homes Bill brought in by himself (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Seddon had strongly opposed it, and next session had made it a Government measure. They were told the Cabinet must be of one mind. Well, now—(Mr MORRISON—"They say so.")—well, they were of one mind, became there was only one mind amongst them. He referred to the

Premier dominating the House and taking ihe private members , day from them. But if the Bill were passed it would not ba a complete reform. There would have to be two large Committees appointed in the Honae, as the House should not be deprived of its liberty. The reason why this Bill found so much favour with members was becausa they were deprived of their liberty in Parliament by the Government. He admitted that it was a fair argument to say the Bill would deetroy party organisation at elections. An Executive chosen by the House could not destroy agitations on such questions as

temperance and Bible in schools, &c. Oae advantage gained by this Bill was that the Executive would be a reflexus of the House, instead of being choeen by the Premier. .They would also get more freedom in the House, and laws would be dealt with on their merits, which was not the case at present. Ho repeated this Bill would not be a complete reform. It was only a step forward. He asked the House to give this reform a trial.

Mr MORRISON had always opposed this measure, and would do so now on putely party grounds. He was a party man, and believed this Bill would be injurious to party organisations , . Wa3 it likely they could get purer administration under this elective system than they had at present, especially when the Executive would be elected by men who would probably not know each other ?

Mr McNAB supported the Bill. Mc ALLEN said the real cure for the evils of party Government was nob in elective Executive, bat in purifying the whole system of party Government. Mr PI RANI wjw no& voting for the Bill on any persoual motives. He had advocated ie six yeara ago. Hβ regretted that the Minister for Pabiio Works now adopted a different attitude to that assumed by him before he was a Minister, when he was glad to work hand and glove with those whom he now taunted for haviug minds of their own.

The motion for the secohd reading resulted in a tie—Ayes, 23 ; noes, 23. j The SPEAKER said ib appeared to him that the House did nob know what to do with the Bill, and he should give his vote with the ayes to give it an opportunity of getting into Committee.

1 he folowiug is the division liefc :— Ayes (23)~Mes8ra Buddo, Buick, Button, Crowther, Earnshxw, Green, Guinness, Heke, Joyce, J. W. Kelly, Lang, Massev, McGuire, McNab, Meredith, O'Reean, Pirani, G. W. Ruasell, Saunders, G. J. Smith, Major Steward, Sir Robert Stout and Mr, Tanner.

Noes (23)— Messrs Allen, Cadman, Carncrosa, Carnell, Duncan, Flatman, Hall, Harris, Hogg, Houston, Lawry, Lewis, McGowan, R. Mackenzie, McLachlan, Millar, Mills, Montgomery, Morrison, Pinkerton, SedJon, Stevens, and Willis. The Bill was ordered to be committed that day month.

The House rose at 1.35 a.m