THE LORDS IN PROTEST.

Evening Star, Issue 14962, 23 August 1912, Page 3

THE LORDS IN PROTEST.

SOME VIGOROUS CRITICISM. PROPORTIONAL THEORY ATTACKED. EVILS OF POPULAR CHAMBER AS APPLIED TO SECOND HOUSE. [From Ocr Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, August 25. The second-reading debate on the Legislative Council Reform Bill, adjourned after the Hon. Mr Bell's speech on Wednesday, was resumed in the Upper House yesterdav afternoon. the Hon. Seymour Thorn© George, In seconding the motion for the second reading, pointed out that he was merely seconding' the elective principle. Personally he had in past years always been in favor of a nominative Council, and he would still have favored that principle had the nominations been confined to prominent public men, such as mayors of boroughs, chairmen of public bod"ies, and so on. But the introduction of the seven-year appointment was, to his mind, an undesirable innovation, bringing about a state of affairs which, he believed, could only be remedied by the constitution of an elective Council. The speaker said that, in his opinion, the question of franchise was the great difficulty in bringing forward a Bill for an elective Chamber. In regard to the question of the system to be used, he did not think the majority system would be a wise one. The second ballot itself was an instance of ineffectiveness in the working of the absolute majority. For true representation, he was strongly of opinion that the alternative system was the best that could be adopted. In place of the second ballot for the Second Chamber, he believed in the proportional system, and he favored the Gregory system, which had been adopted in Tasmania, as preferable to the Courtenay system (that adopted in the Bill), as "it was more mathematically correct.

—Machinery Amendments Necessary.— In discussing the Bill, he expressed the opinion that considerable alterations would have to be made in the machinery clauses. Whvdid the Bill only propose the elective principle to apply to the European members of the Chamber? The Maori members were still to be nominated. Then there was no provision in the event of a deadlock between the two Houses. He suggested that in the event of a deadlock, which could not he settled, provision should be made for an immediate appeal to the countrv. He also objected to the contravention "of the principle of proportion by the proposal to give 20 members to each island. Under true proportion there should be 22£ members for the North Island and 174 for the South Island. Neither did he agree with the two-elec-torate proposal. An Hon. Member: Very simple. Mr George: Yes, too simple; but what will be the result? The big cities like Auckland and Wellington will pn> bablv nominate 10 candidates. Hon. Members: No, no. Mr George: But why not? They will nominate men to represent their interests, and the smaller towns will probably nominate five or six; in fact, for the 10 seats in the North Island you will probably have 40 candidates. The whole thing would become so cumbrous as to be impossible. The speaker contended that four electorates for each island would be preferable. He suggested that if the Bill passed its second reading it should be referred to a select committee of about 10 members, for the purpose of knocking it into practicable shape. A LEGISLATIVE MISNOMER.

The Hon. O. Samuel, after congratulating the Leader of the Council upon his able advocacy of the Bill, contended that Mr Bell, whatever his private opinion, had to vote as his party voted and as Cabinet decided he should vote. Coming to the Bill, he said he dissented from the remark of the Leader of the Council that the whole question at issue was the change from the nominative to the elective system, and that all else was mere nothing. He (Mr Samuel) contended that the Bill was a Legislature Amendment Bill, for it affected the whole constitution of the Legislature. Whv. then, did not the.hon. gentleman introduce a Bill to bring the popular Chamber into line with the proposals in the Bill? Mr Bell: How could I introduce it here ? Mr Samuel: The hon. gentleman should have had it introduced elsewhere. Let him have a Bill introduced to apply to both Houses, instead of this one, which was trving a piecemeal experiment. No, they sav, rather let us try it in the Council-" ' * ~ • , Mr Bell: Do you say I could insert clauses to that effect in this Bill? Mr Samuel: I say let them introduce it into the other place first. The speaker went on to say: "Ought we not rather to abolish the" Second Chamber than to make the alteration proposed?" He argued that it was proposed to deal with the Council under a treatment that had been consistently disapproved in this countrv. He believed that if a change in the constitution of the Council were necessary, it should be on the lines indicated by Sir Frederick Whitaker in 1889 ; in short, if elective, it should be selected either by j the House of Representatives or by the ■ two Chambers sitting together. An Hon. Member: Hear, hear. , —Abolition for Preference. —

The speaker proceeded to say that if the Second Chamber were made subject to the same disabilities and all the evils which affected the House of Represent;!- I tives. then, in his opinion, they would be taking away the Council's usefulness, and it would be" time to abolish it altogether. Hon, Members: Hear, hear. Mr Samuel: There was a lot of talk about coming back with a mandate from the majority of the people of the country. It had become a good old hack cry, and now the Government came along and declared that they had a mandate to reform the Council. He contended that the people as a whole had never been consulted about the Bill now before the Chamber. Hon. W. Beehan: Hear, hear. That is so. Mr Samuel: The present Government had included a reformed Council as a popular and attractive plank with which to go to the country, and when in opposition their leaders talked about it as a means of bolstering the chances of their own side. —Erecting a Buffer.— Mr Bell: They had a Leader, you know. Mr Samuel: Yes; and 1 say the members of the party vvew pledged to support him, whether they believed in all the planks or not. Reform had been called for by the Leader of the Opposition—now the Prime Minister of the Dominion—and the party have decided " that the Council must be ended or mended, or we will erect a buffer between ourselves and the people. In order to free ourselves from the attacks we levelled against our opponents in the past we will bring down a Bill." (Laughter.) The hon. gentleman denied that there had been anything like the dissatisfaction with the Legislative Council that the Government had represented. He admitted that defects existed, but they were remediable, though not by making it an elective body. As the Leader of the Council had declared, the members might at present be sitting under a upas tree, but if the popular Chamber put the hundredth part of the care and conscientious effort into their work which the Council did, it would be less in need of reform than at present, with its personal abuse, its cabals, its petty schemes, and petty squabbles. —The Road to Evasion.— Mr Samuel proceeded to contend that, under the proportional system, with the one electorate for each island, organisation of the various factions, combination of tickets, and choice by the leaders how the preferences should be indicated could put to naught all the theory of proper proportional representation. When it came to the actual ballot, the change proposed in the Bill would, he asserted,

work out disastrously to the interests of the people, of the Dominion as a whole, and he failed to see how intelligent, thoughtful men, unless blinded by party —(laughter) —could conceive that the adoption of the measure would result in' the welfare of the Dominion. "I believe in the alternative vote rather than the second ballot for the House of Representatives," declared the hon. gentleman. "It was not by a Bill of the Council that this bad measure was inflicted on the people." An Hon. Member: The Council passed it. Mr Samuel: Yes, hut that Second Ballot Bill came from tiie lepresentatives of the people, and the only serious opposition it met with was from this nominative Cliambcr. (Hear, hear.) Ho went on to contend that, notwithstanding what had fallen from the Leader of the Council, the Hare system had almost universally been condemned in other countries. If the system under consideration came into effect, it would mean that the men elected to the Council would represent 40 times as many people as did the members in the House of Representatives. Were the members of the Council, under such circumstances, going to allow themselves to be deprived of the representative right to deal with financial Bills? "And yet we are told we shall be able to do justice to the people we represent by beine deprived of some of the essentials which belong to the representatives of the people !" declared the hon. gentleman, in concluding. AN ADVERSE AMENDMENT. The Hon. J. Rigg contended that the Bill was one that should not be allowed to pass its second reading. One of the functions of the Council was to check hasty legislation, and this Bill came within that category. It introduced an experiment in electoral reform which should first be applied to the Representative House. It was pnt forward by a Government which could not well be said to possess the confidence of the people as a whole, and for these reasons the Bill should be defeated. He proceeded to defend the nominative system. If they were to have a separate Chamber it must differ fundamentally from the Representative Chamj ber. If they wanted the proper clement \ to constitute a Second Chamber it was onlv possible to get it by selection. He believed in a nominative Chamber, and he held that if tho Government of the counj try were fit to govern the Dominion they i were fit to nominate the representatives of | the Upper House. Mr Rigg proceeded to I say that he thought appointment for seven years was too long a period. If the appointments weTe for four years, inefficient councillors need not be kept for so long, and, further, the Government in power could depend on getting a majority in the Council in a short period. He was of opinion that for many years past tho Council had been too one-sided and not independent enough. It should not have dispensed with committee work. The Council, however, had done much good work. It had not for 20 years rejected a single democratic measure; it had for a long time been even more democratic than House. The first agitation had been by Labor bodies, who, considering the Council superfluous, wanted it abolished. Thev did not ask for an elective Upper House. If the Council rejected this measure and the Government appointed more members, the people would discover that the Council had been reformed, and would let the matter drop. He moved—"That this Bill be read a second time this day six months."

"THE CULMINATION OF THREATS."

" There is no necessity for any change, was the prefatory sentence of the Hon. G. Jonee. The Bill, he continued, .wasthe culmination of threats, purely partisan and based upon an unfounded estimate ot the Legislative Council. Members had been accused of servility and of the crime of passing Liberal measures, but to hismind the crime consisted of opposing reforms and then claiming credit for them when they were proved successes. the Council had a right to ask for more justification for such a measure.

—Vilification on the Hustings. Some, reasons should surelv be advanced for the vilification of tho Council on the hustings and in the Legislature. He raised his emphatic protest against the manner in which the Bill had been introduced and against the abuse heaped upon the Council. The speaker quoted a speech of the Hon. A. L. Herd man at Oamaru, where the Minister -suggested that Councillors became very subservient towards the end of their term, and that he (Mr. Jones) published nice things in his newspaper so that he could hold his position and secure the Government advertise-, ■ments. "This gentlemanis a Reformer who sets himself up as a superior person, something better than the common run of mankind." —Thrown Like a Bone.— If the truth were known, the Government did not want the measure; it was thrown into the Council like a bone to a dog for them to worry over, xie did not object to the appropriation of policy so that the Reform party could masquerade as Liberals, but it was going too far to heap obloquy upon the men who had served their country well, and to insult the independence and status of Legislative Councillors. Hon. H. D. Bell : How is that? It is not in the Bill. The Hon. G. Jones : Because it comes on top of statements that the Council consists of sycophants and crawlers. Hon. Mr Bell : I did not say that. Hon. Mr Jones : "No; you are a good specimen of your class. The hon. gentleman ought not to have been Minister of Internal Affairs—it sounds like something out of a cooks hop. He should have been Attorney-General." (Hear, hear.) The 1 speaker concluded with an assurance that he only got up to protest against the vile abuse heaped on the Council and against the introduction of the Bill without rhyme or reason. | the debate, at 9.15 p.m., was adjourned till the following day on the motion of tho Hon. J. T. Paul.