Upper Chambers.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20563, 3 June 1932, Page 10

Upper Chambers.

It is natural that the defenders of the New South Wales Legislative Council, having saved it from abolition by the Lang Government, should begin to think about making it a more reputable institution. The Premier, according to this morning's cable news, is determined to reduce the Council in size, to make it a purely deliberative Chamber, and to safeguard it against partisanship. If the Premier's ideas are not as easy to understand as his motives, he is hardly to be blamed. Although Upper House reform has at one time or another been a political™issue in almost every constitutionally governed country in the world, there is little agreement as to the functions of Upper Chambers or the manner in which they should be constituted. In Europe, indeed, opinion is still fairly evenly divided on the question whether Upper Chambers are desirable, Of the new States created after the War, fourPoland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and the Irish Free State—have bicameral Legislatures, and four —Jugoslavia, Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—have single Chambers only. In the Britiijh Empire the, need for Upper Chambers is fairly' generally admitted; but theories of their proper constitution are as varied as the practice. Lord Passfield has argued that the Norwegian system ought to be adopted by all countries with Parliamentary constitutions. Under this system the Storthing, a body of 123 members elected triennially, chooses at its first meeting one-fourth of its members to constitute the Lagthing, or revising chamber. Lord Bryee, the chairman ' of the Second Chamber Conference of 1917-18, favoured the election of the' Upper Chamber by panels of members of the Lower Chamber, voting in geo'graphical groups, and also a joint committee of both Chambers. Sir John Marriott advocates the French system, whereby the Senate is chosen by electoral colleges consisting of the Deputies, high State officials, and local body representatives in each Department. Various proposals have also been put forward for "functional" Second Chambers, consisting of representatives of trades, professions, and religious bodies. Yet the real problem of Upper Chambers is not one of form but of powers; and this }s the real reason why

most movements for reform have ended in unimportant tinkering. It is not difficult to devise an efficient Upper Chamber. The difficulty is to ensure that it will do no more than delay and criticise. "To erect a bulwark against "revolution without interposing bar- " riers to reform" is, as Sir John Marriott remarks, " a task which may " baffle the ingenuity of the most "skilful and experienced of political " architects."