UPPER HOUSE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 34, 8 August 1925, Page 13

UPPER HOUSE

ABOLITION PROPOSED

LABOUR AMENDMENT

DEFEATED

MEMBERS' SINGING QUALITIES,

The- Legislative Council came under fire in the House.of Representatives last night, when the Legislative Department's Estimates were being considered. The attack was initiated on behalf of the Labour Party by Mr. A. L. Monteith (Wellington liast), who moved that the vote for „. the Legislative Department be reduced by £4 as an indication that the Council should be abolished.

Mr. Monteith mentioned the fact that on one occasion a Legislative Councillor had referred to the speaker and some of his colleagues singing the National Anthom.

The Prime Minister: "Did the hon. gentleman sing it?"

"Yes," replied Mr. Monteith, "but the only trouble was that he complained of the way I sang it. I was in a cleft stick. Had I not raised my voice I would have been accused of not singing it, and because I sang it I was accused of having a rotten voice." (Loud laughter.) The hon. gentleman in the Legislative Council who had criticised his voice received £14 a minute for doing "so. "When it has got that far," said Mr. Monteith, "it is just about time that the outfit was wiped out." Mr. W. D. Lyßnar (Gifcborne): "You would Wipe out both Houses." Mr. Monteith: "Well, there are some members who will be wiped out very shortly.", (Laughter.) The average age of members of the Legislative Council, no added, was'7o years." Mr. Coates: "What is their height?"

Mr. Monteith: "Some of them are bigger from the shoulders up than the lion, gentleman." It is absolutely unfair to Oring these hon. gentlemen out at such a time in their livts to trouble them with the affairs of tho Stats. When they study the quality of members' voices 1 think it is clear that this institution should be abolished. . . Apparently iv the records of the House my voice will be recorded as being of poor quality." (Laughter.) The Council, added Mr. Monteith, had just adjourned for a week after a "strenuous" week in which it had worked for six minutes. MUST BE RESPECTFUL At this stage, the Prime Minister drew attention to ruling of Speakers, which laid it down that members must not speak disrespectfully of .other branches of the Legislature. Ke thought Mr. Monteith was on the borderline*, and lie was not sure that Mr. Wjonteitli liad not gone too far. "We are not permitted to talk disrespectfully of another place, and I ask hoi), members' to bear that in mind," said Mr. Coates. Mr. D. (.«: Sullivan (Avon): "What about tho reference to the hon. member's voice?"

Air. Coates said he himself had been subjected to personalities, but did not. tare twopence about them.

Mr. J. O'Brien (Wcstland): ".Nobody said you could not sing." (Laughter.) Tho contention was put forward by Mr. P. Frascr (Wellington Central)'-that Mr. Monteith had not spoken disrespectfully of the Legislative Council or of its members. He had certainly pointed out in a respectful fashion that tho expenditure on the Upper House was excessive. He was not prepared to say that ho agreed with Mr. Monteith in the matter of time, in fact, he thought the Legislative Council sat far too long, but that was a matter of opinion. Mr. Monteith had simply shown that the service rendered was not commensurate with the time employed on it. The Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. A. Young) drew attention to the fact that a motion requiring- legislation for the abolition of the Upper House was contrary to the Standing Orders. Mr. Monteith had,said nothing disrespectful.

The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) pointed out that during the six weeks of the -session to date the Council had sat for 33 hours 16 minutes, an average of 5 hours 3 minutes per week. This might be increased or decreased as the session advanced, but the figures did show the absurdity of tj;e system, and that it .was uneconomical. The institution cost the country £455 a woek, and from that Chamber came many of the charges against the workers of going slow.

"GO SLOW" IN LOWER HOUSE. "It is true that the working hours of the Council up to date have not been of long duration," agreed the Prime Minister (the Hon. J. G. Coates). But that had not been the fault of the Council. If there was any fault or blame for delay it was attributable to the Lower Chamber, and that alone. The Council had kept up to date with their work.

"There 1 is no work for them to do," observed Mr. Holland.

Mr. Coates: "Exactly, and how can they when we take six weeks to get through the Address-in-Eeply and the Financial Debate?" The Legislative Council, he said, was a rovising Chamber. '

Mr. Holland: "Couldn't a revisory committee of the House do the work?"

"The constitution of the country provides for another Chamber," replied the Prime Minister. "It is a system that this country understands and has gdt used to. Even supposing that it has cost £450 a week, the work done by the Chamber in the past has been of the utmost, value." (Hear, hear.) Its revisory work has been invaluable. Tho hours the Councillors worked in Committee were even greater than those worked in the open Council. Moreover, it was composed of men of all classes of the community, and they were not put there because they belonged to any particular colour.

Mr. Monteith referred to the representation of Labour.

Mr. Coates: ','There are representatives of Labour there."

"There is not one representative of organised Labour there," asserted Mr. Holland.

Mr. Coates alluded to' Mr. Holland's statement about references in the Legislative Council to the workers going slow, and said the House could quite definitely be charged with going slow by, the Councillors, but it is not their custom to do so. There had been a lot of talk in the House in the past six weeks, and not a- great deal of work. He referred to the fact that it had been the custom of the House for some years past to discuss the Address-in-JReply and the Budget at length. lie could not allow the Labour members' statements to go unchallenged. He differed from Mr. Holland entirely, and maintained that the Council had done good work and that the number of hours ' the Council sat. did not represent the work done. "This Chamber," ho snid in conclusion, "relies upon them to show vigilance and point out nny errors they think in their wisdom way be committed." Mr, P. Fraeer (Wellington Central)

laid they had ths utmost respect for the members of "the other place."

"Would you do away with both Houses?" asked Mr. "w. D. Lysnar (Gisborne). Mr. Fraser said He ;would leave that to the electors. A ONE-MAN JOB Mr. Lysnar suggested that the Labour Party would do away with the I Lower House if they could. "Oh, no," said Mr. Eraser, "if we eliminated a few members like the hon. member for Gisborne it would bo quite all right." He said that if every member of the Legislative Council was eliminated and the Attorney-General was left the work of the Council would be done just as efficiently as it was today. The whole of the work of the Council could be done quit 9 effectively for the salary of the Leader of tlje Council alone. He did hia work thor- r oughly, and left nothing at all for the rest of the Council to do.

Mr. Lysnar submitted that it was not a question of expense bo far as the extreme Labour Party was concerned so much as the abolition of the Upper House and the Lower House if they could, and the alteration of the oath of allegiance."

Mr. Holland: "Do you mean to say wo would abolish the House and alter the oath?"

"Yes," said Mr. Lysnar. "That is admitted by the members of the Labour Party. (Laughter from Mr. Holland.) It has been stated in this House. They would substitute a workers' committee."

"You would not be on that," interjected Sir James Parr.

Mr. Lysnar: "No, and no •woman would be on it. They would disfranchise all tho women."

Sir James Parr said that evidently Mr. Monteith had moved the amendment with the intention of abolishing the Upper House without providing anything to take its place. There were many people in New Zealand who thought that the' present method of selecting the Upper House might well be improved, and Borne thought the Council should be made elective. He was not prepared to discuss which was the better method of selection, but it had been urged with great weight by many constitutional writers, and practice had shown that there was much in it, that where there were two elective Chambers deadlocks often arose between them. There was need for a second Chamber to revise the legislation of the Lower House. A WORLD TREND Mr.. Holland said that the Labour Party proposed that there should be a revising committee composed of members of the House of Representatives to do the work of revision which the Council was supposed to be doing at the present time. The Attorney-Gen-eral approved of the legislation which came from the Lower House, and whatever mistakes were made were, in the last analysis, mistakes of the AttorneyGeneral. The Legislative Councillors were not representatives of the people, and yet Kad the right to veto the decisions of the people's representatives. All over the world there was a trend for getting rid of second Chambers. He agreed with the Minister that a second elective Chamber would be bad, because it was easier to get rid of a nominative Chamber than an elective Chamber.

The amendment was defeated by 41 votes to 12. • ■