COUNCIL REFORM

Evening Star, Issue 15293, 19 September 1913, Page 4

COUNCIL REFORM

[Pee United Press Association.] The debate on the Legislative Council Bill was resumed yesterday afternoon by the Hon. 0. Samuel, who declared that the Hon. Mr Bell, the Minister in charge, Lad been somewhat misled last session by the Council passing the second reading of the Bill and then suspending the measure. No such misunderstanding could occur this session. Ho reviewed the circumstances which had led up to tho reference of tho Bill to a Select Committee, and ©aid it was impossible for that committee, in the very nature of things, to como to a unanimous decision, but they had furnished an exhaustive amount of valuable material which might help to a. solution of the problem of a reformed Upper House. Personally, lie had been, opposed to a departure from the nominative system, but he had been convinced that though it was undeserved, the fact remained that the Council did nob possess the confidence of tho country. He did not pretend to say that their proposal was a. perfect one, but he felt that unless something was done worse might happen. The Council might be abolished, or, worse still, the BUI brought down by the Government might be passed. Such was the opinion of the committee on the Government Bill that had a resolution been proposed endorsing the principle of that Bill tho Minister would nave been tho only member voting for it. The resolution which the committee had carried by 5 votes to 4 was the basis of tho Bill which, he (the speaker) had compiled, and was largely on the lines of a measure formerly prepared by the late Sir Frederick Whitaker. The Bill proposed to fill vacancies in tho Council as they occurred by a poll of members of both Houses, voting by ballot paper, and not at a meeting where party influences might, govern the choice. Under this system it was hoped to avoid all tho turmoil associated with a General Election, and this passive atmosphere was further provided for by arranging that only three of tho retiring Councillors, should go out at one time. Ho was not going to set up the Bill which the committee had prepared against Bio Bill introduced by the Min ieter. That gentleman was entitled to a clear-cut division on his Bill, and he would not attempt to intercept that division. In the event of the Government Bill being defeated, he would do his best to assist the committee’s Bill through the Council. ’The elective Upper House had been added to the Reform platform without, a due sense oi responsibility, because before the last election that party had not the remotest idea that it was coming into power. He was quite prepared to acquit that tho Council lacked the confidence of the country, but he was not prepared to admit that the country was in favor of a system of election such as was contained in the Government Bill. He thought the country would sooner vote for the abolition of the Council. He denounced the principle of Proportional Representation, which had been adopted bv no country but Tasmania—a corn try only one-fifth the size of New Zealand and not one-twentieth its intelligence, and where, according to Mr Mansfield, the system had faded. There was too great a tendency to imitate the legication of other countries just because they differed from us. There was no constitution in the world which gave finer opportunities for enterprise or greater liberty than that of Few Zealand. Australia had been quoted to them as a fit, example to emulate in an elective Upper House, nut that was the last example trey ought to be asked to follow. He was prepared to let the Bill go into committee and take the division on clause 9. If the Minister could carry that, then they could only pray that the Council would be speedily abolished. The Hon. J. Rigg said that, apart from the fact that they had put on record a certain amount of valuable information, he could not congratulate the committee on the result of their labors. The report was a ridiculous one. The resolution of the committee provided that the Bill should, if it was passed, not como into operation until after the nest election; yet there was nothing in the Bill to ensure that reservation. The Bill would destroy every vestige of independence in the Councillors. It had the advantage of allowing a Councillor to vote for himself, but it\vas equally clear that unless a member made himseff agreeable and popular with his fellowmembers he would have no chance of election. Personally he had frequently had to stand alone in tho interests of democratic legislation, and had incurred the displeasure of his colleagues in consequence. Then there was the larger influence of party, which could not be eliminated from our own politics, and it would bo found that the Government in''power would exert, their influence to get thc-men they wanted chosen. His principal objection to tho Bill was, however, that ho wanted to see more Labor representatives in the Chamber. But what chance would such men have of election under such a system? Were the Councillors going to turn out one of their present members to replace him with a Labor member? He could not see one reason to commend the Bill. He thought the Tasmanian system was the most perfect in the way of Proportional Representation, but it was not perfect without the party list system. Tho Labor party had not asked for an elective Council. It had asked for abolition, therefore his position was plain. He would vote against the Government Bill going into committe, and also against the proposals of the committee. Tho Hon. S. T. George said he must vote against the Bill. The proposed ballot was not a secret one, and generally its electoral provisions were absurd.- The Bill was creating a close corporation, and instead of nomination for life it was seeking to elect members for life. He wanted to see _ elective Council, but not on the basis of the Government Bill. He wanted to see a different franchise adopted in the election of the two Houses. Let a property qualification apply to the Upper House if necessary, but under no consideration would he vote for either of the Bills now before the Council—that brought in by the Government, or that suggested by the committee. J Tho Hon. J. Dutbie could not help feeling that _the_ only safe course to pursue was nomination for life. As a newlvappointed member be was in a difficult position in taking up an attitude hostile to the Government Bill, but on a great constitutional question he was bound to preserve his independence. He maintained that a Council, to properly perform its functions, must be judicial, and that could not be done under an elective sysHowever, if the country wanted an elective Council it was the duty of the Ministry to appoint sufficient members to bring the Council into harmony with the will of the country. The Hon. W. Earnshaw contended that there was a clear mandate from the people to set up an elective Council. Perhaps the Government Bill did not quit© express the public ideal, but it was at least a step in the direction of the reform which the people wanted. The debate at this stage was adjourned.