EVENING SITTING.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 10462, 28 September 1899, Page 6

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.50 p.m. NO-COXFIDEXCE DEBATE. Mr J. ALLEN continued his- speech, appealing to the House to leave the question of tb» constitution of the Upper House aa open one until afK-r the constituencies had had the opportunity of .expressing an opinion at the approaching elections. Mr MOIUtISUX considered that the electors t>l the colony had already had two opportunities of deciding whether Xoe question of an elective Upper House should be left with the Government, and on. each occasion had decided in the affirmative. Under the old constitution the Council was out of harmony with the progressive sentiments of the people, and lie asserted that the system of limited-period appointments had accomplished all tnat was claimed for it. He ridiculed the cry raised Dy the Opposition about the evils of the party system; yet there were no more determined and consistent party men than theso gentlemen. It was an insult to the electors of the colony to say that the Government was dominated by one man. At the same time the statement was a compliment to that one man. He proceeded to depict the state of the country previous to tne advent of the present administration, aserting that the people were in a state of revolt on account of the labour troubles, wEich had since been ameliorated by the legislation of the Liberal Government. The Conservative party, since their repeated defeats, had been casting about lor a' means by which to get baoK to power, and for that purpose, even pretended that they would accept all ttie Liberal legislation oi years past. Hβ characterised as- absolutely untrue the statement that the Premier was a dictator. Mβ charged the Opposition with, not being .sincere ji their processed desire tor an Elective Upper House, and w-simad the workers of the colony that under such a system only wealthy people would be returned. Mr TAYLOxt said he had been trying during tfca whole session to get a dkscussita on ti\e reform of the Upper House, bub until now without success, tuid after a long speech by the member for Caversham notb-hg bad been said apropos of the question under discusaon. Kef erring to the labour troubled in 1890, ha blamed the labour leaders: for the harmful strife tluib was. then .'.aroused. He proc&aded to say that members of the,, Upjwr House had no constituency, no responsibility, and yet bad power to destroy all legislation of the Lower House. It was said that the CouncTe functions were to «ct as a revisory body, but bo contended tthat tiie Statutes Revision Coinmittee.oJ .the House was a> more useful revisory board than the Council.,The fact was that by force of circumstances appointments to the Council had degenerated into part of the system of spoils to the victors. He . concluded that • the principle of election _ should be applied not only to the Upper House, but, to the Government as well. He wanted reform of the Council, no nutter from what direction —from the Conservative or LJ'beral side of the House—and hailed with pleasure the opportunity now presented of attaining that end. Speaking of the party system, he characterised it a* a foe to progress. He did aat believe in an Elective Upper House, but preferred it to the nominated system, and was prepared to accept ib as an instalment of reform. . - I Mr (MILLAR ny no necessity for an Elective Upper House. If that Chamber were to be reformed at all, it should be abolished altogether. If the Council were to be elective, members -would have to be elected upon a different franchise; if'upon the property qualification, then he objected to the Council being composed of property representatives. Then as far as the Labour party were concerned, they were not to be gulled into supporting the Conservative party at the coming election on the question of the constitution of the Upper House. Personalty, he was quite prepared to accept the verdict of the electors on the subject. Mr G. HUiOHISON considered that the system of a nominated Upper w-a* thoroughly wrong, and said it had been discarded by all the Australian eglonies except two. Appointments .had been made to the Council that could not be defended. It was absurd that at the present time; one-third of the effective strength of the Council should be waiting upon the will of the Premier for re-appointment. It had bsen said that the Opposition had no policy, but their policy was to reform the Upper House, reduce taxation on the necessaries of life, the maintenance of the freehold system, civil service reform, etc. Mr HOGG said the only thing the Opposition had to offer the people was a bribe in the shape of the freehold tenure of land. The objections raised to the Upper House were nude becau* the Opposition, were, disappointed that, not they, but the Liberal party, would make the new appointments. The Upper House was doing pood and effective work in iarmonv with the will of the people. Tke elective system in Victoria had proved a failure, and had resulted in class legislation of the worst character. • lUr MASSEY said no motion had this session come before the House that he could more cordially support than that regarding reform of the - pr>er House. He was a believer in the bi-cameral system of government, but sooner than see that system abused as it had been for some years, he would prefer to see the Council abolished. that should be a limited ntflnber of members elected upon the modification of the Hare system by large electorates. Men were appointed to the Council not for their worth or political experience, but because they would be blind supporters of the Government. He had no hesitation in saying that there were hundreds of men in the colony at the present timo looking forward to being appointed to fill the vacancies that would shortly occur. Mr J. HUTCHESON said there was an imperative necessity for reviewing the constitution of the Council. Although many Government supporters had already affirmed their opinion in that direction, still they would no doubt vote against the amendment. He deprecated criticising too severely members of the Upper House, but he believed that had a change of Government taken place two years ago, no doubt the appointees whose terms of office would expire tbxctly would have seen .fit to change tneir views en the nope of future possibilities. It had been said that if the Council was' made elective wording men wouiv. have no chance of being returned. That was a curious argument for men who were continually using the cry "trust the people." Personally, he had inveiged against the constitution of the Council for years. Ail the various forms of constitution of a second chamber, the aeven yean , term was the worst. He would sooner see the Council composed erf men elected upon a purely property qualification. The amendraejnt was wide enough in its scope to embrace all who were in favour of reform of the Upper House, whether by making it elective or abolishing it altogether. i

Mγ LA WRY defended the appointments made by the Government to the Council, and regretted that caarges had been made against the appointees of the Government that they were simply in that Chamber to record the will of the Premier. The result of the debate was a foregone conclusion, and, although it might be made a cry for the coming elections, he believed people would resent it.

Mr MONTGOMERY said the amendment was an instance of the evils of party government, as those Liberal members who approved of the legislation of the Government would have to walk into the lobby with the Opposition members on the question under debate. The reform of the Council was a question tuat demanded immediate attention. A nominated Council was the most Conservative principle that could be adopted, and yet its abrogation was proposed not by a Liberal Government but by the Opposition. He believed that the legislation of the Govern-

ment hod been generally for the benefit of the masses. What he disapproved oi was some of its administrative acts. The nominated system was a relic of feudal times, and the sooner reform was instiluted the better. In voting for the amendment he urn not mean to imply that he disapproved generally oi the policy of the Government, but when it became a question of supporting iue Govern-! meat or principles he would be found supporting: the latter. Mr FISHER opposed the amendment, and adversely criticise*}.Mr J. Hutcheson's at« titude ki regard to tae question. ■* Mr OROW IHF.R wa/ of opinion that were it not it/r party politics, the umendment would be carried, as many Government supporters who believed in reform of the Council would, to save the vote against it. , . Mr PIRANI was spea<king when the telegraph offic2 closed at 2 a.m.