UPPER HOUSE ABOLITION MOVE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22407, 14 August 1947, Page 3

UPPER HOUSE ABOLITION MOVE

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

GOVERNMENT AMENDS OPPOSITION BILL LABOUR MEMBERS CRITICISE COUNCIL (P.R.) 'WELLINGTON. August. 14. By a majority of two votes the House of Representatives decided last night to adopt the amendment by the Prime Minister, Mr. P. F rascr. in preference to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. S. G. Holland, for tiie second reading of the Legislative Council Abolition Bill. A pair for the Minister of Marine, Air. J. O’Brien, the vacancy in the Mount Albert seat and the fact that the Speaker. Air. R. AlcKcen, did not vote accounted for the 39 to 37 vote in two divisions. The Government’s amendment proposes that this session the Statute of Westminster will he adopted by New Zealand and that a committee be appointed to sit with a committee of the Legislative Council to consider the desirability of making the House of Representatives the sole legislative ’chamber, or establishing a revising body for legislation passed by the House of Representatives.

Mr. YV. A. Bodkin (Oppos., Central i Otago) stated that he had previously mentioned £50,000 as the annual cost of Ihc Legislative Council, but on checking the figures he found this estimate to be conservative because each member with value of privileges cost £SOO a year,to which should be added the remuneration of the Speaker, the chairman of committees and the staff. The Council occupied premises which were sorely needed by other departments of State. Mr. Bodkin suggested that if an institution was really functioning, this would be shown by the differences of opinion, but although there were 24 divisions in the council in 1936, there were none in 1940 when it seemed to be a mutual admiration society. Dr. Finlay Favours One Chamber “I am in favour of a one chamber system of Legislature, and I hope that when the committee that will probably be set up by the Prime Minister _is established, I will have the opportunity of making fairly strong submissions* to it,” said Dr. A. Finlay (Govt., North Shore). Dr. Finlay suggested that there were two difficulties in the way of sweeping away the Upper House. The first was connected with the Legislature proceduce. In spite of criticism the Upper House was not utterly devoid of use at the present time. There was its amending of bills to be considered. In addition, without altering constitutional procedure, they could not abolish the Upper House, and so the second difficulty was constitutional. It had been claimed that the Legislative Council had never been better, but it could not be worse, said Mr. F. W. Doidge (Oppos., Tauranga). If there were a referendum among the people tomorrow as to the fate of the Upper House that, chamber would go out neck and crop, he said. People regarded the Council as a worthless institution filled with political puppets. Out of the last 21 appointments made by the Government to the Upper House there was not a single case of an ex-serviceman being appointed, said Mr. Doidge. “Means of Killing Bill” The Prime Minister, said Mr. Doidge, had only one purpose of bringing down the amendment before the House. It was a means of killing the bill. “As the only member of this House who has also been a member of the other place, I feel I can speak with some qualifications,” said the Minister of Labour, Mr. A. McLagan. The member for Tauranga had alleged that the Upper House had never been worse than it was today, but the reason why the party opposite disliked it so much was that it had never been so good as it was now.

In refutation of the statement by Mr. Doidge that there were no ex-service-

men among the last 21 appointments to tile Legislative Council, Mr, McLagan pointed out that Messrs. P. J. O’Kanc. W. Black, F. G. Young, F. Waite and Sir William Perry were all ex-service-men.

A typically breezy note with some unexpected passages was introduced by Mr, P. Kcarins (Govt., Waimarino). “I was not long here before my party knew where I stood on this issue,” he began. “I stand for one chamber and I believe that only the elected representatives of the people should have the right to any say in passing laws that the people must obey.” Mr. Kcarins said he believed in the abolition of the Upper House by the quickest possible way. This was written into the Labour Party’s policy, but everything in a policy was not implemented. “Amendment YY'ill Do Job” However, once the Labour Government had brought down a bill to abolish the Council it would have implemented practically all its policy, which no other Government could claim. The Prime Minister’s amendment ■would do the job, contended Mr. Kcarins, who added that he wanted to do his best to put the Government back on the straight and narrow path. He was surprised, said Mr. Kcarins. by a provision in the bill that it should not be implemented for 12 months—“a sort of Kathleen Mavournecn stunt, maybe for years and maybe for ever,” he commented. “It will not he my fault if a bill to abolish the Council is not passed next session, and it will be a case of sudden death.” The abolition of the Council would be popular with from 80 to .90 per cent of the people and the amendment was the right way to go about it, clearing away constitutional difficulties. “You won't get a member of the Opposition to get up and make a speech against his own party, as the member for Waimarino has done tonight,” added Mr. Kearins. The Leader of the Opposition. Mr, S. G. Holland, said at this stage that his party intended to put up no more speakers. The Government had the power to talk the bill out, but he challenged the Government to let the division bells ring and allow each member to vote according to his conscience. Mr. F. Langstone (Govt., RoskilH said lie was going to vote for the amendment and he believed that 90 per cent of the people realised that the amendment was a more direct: and efficient approach to the establishment of a single legislative chamber. The House then divided on the amendment issu&i