UPPER HOUSE

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 136, 6 December 1932, Page 10

UPPER HOUSE

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGES

PROTESTS' IN COUNCIL

An important point regarding the constitutional rights of the Legislative Council to amend Bills affecting the Crown cropped up when the-Council was considering the Mortgagors arid Tenants Further Relief Bill. The Council may reject, but cannot amend a Bill relating to Crown lands or moneys.

With the idea of protecting mortgagors who had contracted themselves out of the previous legislation concerning mortgagors, the Statutes Revision Committee of the Council proposed an amendment to the Mortgagors and Tenants Further Relief Bill, having for its object the bridging of the gap between the time the Bill passes and its coming into operation. Although the Bill does affect land held by the Crown the amendment was drawn so as to accord with what had been done on a previous occasion when the Council succeeded in amending a mortgagors relief Bill, notwithstanding that it contained a reference to lands of the Crown.

When the matter came before the Council last week, the Leader of the Council (Sir James Parr) objected to the Committee's amendment. being inserted in the Bill, stating that the question of urgency in the passage of the legislation arose and there might not be time; for' conferences with the Lower House; the Government would have the matter covered by GovernorGaneral's Message. Objection to the Council not being allowed to insert the amendment of the. Statutes Revision Committee was made by the Eight Hon. Sir Francis Bell and the Hon. C. J. Carrington, who maintained that there was plenty, of time to confer with the Lower House that day, and that the Council would be quite within its_ rights in amending the Bill in the direction proposed by the Statutes Revision Committee.

Sir Francis Bell contended that the amendment was within the rights of the Council, and added that they should be careful to guard their powers. He suggested that ■■ a privilege committee composed of the whole Council might be sot up in order to consider future questions of this nature.

The Hon. C.. J. Carrington said that it was in the best interests of the country that the whittling away of the constitutional powers and privileges of the Council should be strenuously opposed. It was a revisionary Chamber, and, as such, had' rights arid privileges which should be upheld. The Statutes Eevision Committee had given mature consideration to the Bill and in its wisdom had. suggested a certain amendment, but they had arrived at a position where that. desirablo amendment was withdrawn.