UPPER HOUSE ABOLITION BILLSURPRISE INTERVENTION BY GOVERNMENT MEMBER

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 August 1949, Page 9

UPPER HOUSE ABOLITION BILL—SURPRISE INTERVENTION BY GOVERNMENT MEMBER

WELLINGTON, August 17.—A surprise intervention by Mr P. Kearins (Government, Waimarino) in the Legislative Council Abolition Bill debate in the House of Representatives this evening prevented a vote on a Government amendment to defer the bill for three months, in effect to kill it, and the debate was adjourned until next Wednesday. . It was. obvious that Mr Kearins’s speech, in which he said it would not be his fault if the Government did not introduce a similar bill, was an unwelcome surprise to both the Prime Minister .(Mr Fraser-) and the Government Whips, (Messfs R. M. Macfarlane and P. G. Connolly), who are responsible lor party discipline in the chamber. The time for the adjournment was 10.30 p.m. and at 10.27 p.m., just as the House was about to take a vote on the amendment moved by the Prime Minister, Mr Kearins rose unexpectedly to his feet and had to be called by Mr Speaker-(Mr R. McKeen).

Rank-and-file Support Mr Kearins said that it was important that the public should know that this matter was under consideration by the Government and had been for some months. It was also important to know that this bill was a- constitutional matter, which no private member had any possibility of implementing. Even if the bill should pass, there would be no chance of getting it past the Upper House unless it was a Government, measure. “This is only making a joke of the whole thing” said Mr Kearins, with obvious feeling. It would not be his fault if the Government did not bring down a bill and, if the bill was to abolish the Upper House, most of the rank and file of the party would support it. Debate Adjourned

The time having come for the adjournment. Mr Speaker announced that, the debate would be set down for next Wednesday evening. Mr Kearins was still speaking and, even after the adjournment, he tried to raise a point of order. Members of both parties stayed in the chamber for some time in excited, consultation. Afterwards some members said Mr Kearins had “rocked the boat” in a way unprecedented in Labour's term of office. The prediction was freely made that the Government caucus tomorrow would be stormy. Moving the second reading, Mr Holland said the change in the legislature which he sought to make was a fundamental one not lightly introduced. He was critically examining an institution, not criticising any, members of the Council, among whom he had friends. The Council as now constituted performed no useful function, it- initiated no legislation, did not really revise legislation from the Lower House, and did not prevent great changes in the administration of the country’s affairs. Abolition of the Council was in the National Party’s policy and had always been in the policy of the Labour Party, said Mr Holland Views Of Councillors Appointees to the Council were once supposed to be chosen for their independent views, but today a man had little chance of appointment unless he was of the right colour. In. 1947 the Prime Minister had said there were constitutional difficulties to the abolition of the Council, but those difficulties had since been removed. The Prime Minister had introduced an amendment to sidetrack the bill on that occasion and a committee of members of both Houses, which reported on the future of the Legislative Council, was given no evidence in favour of retention, of the present system. Legislative councillors during the 1947 inquiry suggested the council should surrender its power to veto Government legislation, but it was too much in any case to expect Councillors whose reappointment was in prospect to vote against a Government measure.

Members’ Statements Mr Holland said the .member for Roskill (Mr F. Langstone) had pro-| mised to vote for the Bill and the member for Waimarino, who had promised in 1947 to vote for _ the Council's abolition, if constitutional difficulties were removed, was look- I jng for a way out. I Mr Holland said his party sought to abolish the Council on principle, not because it had a Labour majority. He asked that the debate be thrown open to members to speak freely according to their convictions. “I know where | the member for Roskill will be; Ij know where the member for Waimarino should be; and the members for North Shore (Dr A. M. Finlay), Mount Albert (Mr W. Freer) and the rest,” said Mr Holland. Mr Holland said that in 1947 he had said the Council should be abolished. “Then we would run along without one and see what need there is for another chamber in the future” he said. “Could anything be clearer?”. Mr Holland said some of his colleagues, including Mr R. M. Algie (Remuera), Mr M. H. Oram (Manawatu), Mr J. R. Marshall (Mount Victoria) and Mr J. R. Hanan (Invercargill) thought there should be safeguards to a one-chamber Legislature, but those safeguards need not necessarily lie in the reconstitution of an Upper House. He thought Mr Hanan would prefer some form of Uppei’ House, but not the present form.

Written Constitution Suggested Mr Holland said that in Queensland a Labour Government had imposed a country quota to ensure retention of power. The New Zealand Labour Government had abolished a country quota to remain in power. He thought a written, constitution would solve many difficulties and would provide safeguards to one-chamber Government and avoid the situation where the Government could alter the law so that it could retain power. It could not be contested that a Bill that went through' the Parliamentary party, caucus would pass in the lower chamber and in the upper chamber there were actually no safeguards today. Mi’ Holland said that virtually there was no revisory chamber, and New .Zealand should stop paying for one that did not function. Mr Fraser said the Leader of the Opposition had raised many uncertainties and alsfc possibilitiwsr that even the Government had never considered before. He then moved an amendment to postpone consideration.of the Bill for three months. ■An Opposition voice: Same\old dodge. Mr K. J. Holyoake (Opposition, Pahiatua): Hoary with age. Mr Fraser: It’s just as time-horn -wed as the Council,

Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea): W z hat about a referendum? Constitutional Point Mr Fraser said he had listened to the Leader of the Opposition with great interest, but there was one constitutional point Mr Holland did not solve. What would happen if the Opposition became -the Government and introduced drastic changes such as altering Social .Security, conditions of work, or any of the good things the Labour Government done. No Government could stand or tolerate an tJppdr House tfra,t frustrated the will of the Lower House,, said Mr Fraser, and no Governpr-General today would refuse the request of a Prime Minister who went to him and said there' was a hostile majority in the Upper House and that he wanted a majority there which would conform to the will of the people. Mr Fraser said the Upper House had served the country very well and the Opposition objected to it, not because of the Upper House itself, but. because the majority of members in it were of the opposite political train of thought. Mr Holland: That is unworthy 'of you. Mr Holyoake: Is that why the Prime Minister opposed it in the past? Mr Fraser: It was a Tory Upper House and was opposed to everything progressive. The Prime Minister said he was sure that the Leader of the Opposition was envious of the Queensland Government, which had introduced a country quota. Would the Opposition, if it became the Government, restore the quota in New Zealand. Mr Holland: If we become the Government we will restore the una-m--mous recommendations of the last two Representation Commissions. Mr Fraser: That's heading for the jungle. Mr- Algie's Views Mr Algie said a single chamber without safeguards presented the easiest way to single-party Government —totalitarianism. That was why he had. always advocated the need for checks and balances in the legislative system. The present Government had altered the electoral law . once in its favour and might alter it in the whole on another occasion. The Leader o.i the Opposition could not- introduce a bill for the reform of the Council because that would involve an appropriation. Mr Algie said he himself would have liked the opportunity to propound reform of the Legislative Council but, lacking that opportunity, he would vote for the bill as bringing him a step nearer to that opportunity. Mr A. G. Osborne- (Government, Onehunga) said the bill was conceived in a spirit of deceit and objectionable intention. At the request of Mr Speaker the word “deceit” was withdrawn. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) said Government members were fighting not for reform but for a vested interest. Mr Bodkin said the Upper House was a valuable way of rewarding friends. , . , . Mr Macfarlane: What about previous Governments? Mr Bodkin: That only damns it more. ... _