UPPER HOUSE ABOLITION MOVE: MR. HOLLAND URGES FREE VOTE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23023, 13 August 1949, Page 6

UPPER HOUSE ABOLITION MOVE: MR. HOLLAND URGES FREE VOTE

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

(P.E.) . WELLINGTON, Aug. 12. “The chances are that we will have an interesting debate and then it will be forgotten,” said the Prime Minister, Mr. P. Fraser, in the House of Representatives this morning, discussing the Legislative Council Abolition Bill which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. S. G. Holland, had asked for leave to introduce.

The Prime Minister told Mr.’ Holland that the prospects of the bill becoming law this session were “definitely remote.” Mr. Fraser said the bill would have to take its ordinary chance in the House. He added: “I think that for a bill coming from the Leader of the Opposition to stop at the second reading would be very discourteous.” Mr. Fraser Non-Committal But the Prime Minister warned that the bill's future depended on the business of the House. It depended on whether anyone wanted to discuss it, and whether there was time.

Mr. Holland: Can 1 have a second reading division vote? Mr. Fraser: I cannot say that. It . depends on how long the discussion will take When a bill is launched in the House it has to put up with the uncertainties of the House. I will guarantee a second reading debate. Opening ihe debate, Mr. Holland said he was looking forward to the wholehearted support of the “Independent group” in the House. Mr. F. Langstone (Independent Labour. Roskill): With the utmost pleasure. The House would be aware that the bill was bv no means a new subject, continued Mr. Holland. It was fairly right to say that very few people agreed with the present set-up of the Legislative Council. In introducing a bill to abolish the Council he was not taking the step lightly, said Mr. Holland. At the moment the council was an important part of the Legislature. “We are not attacking the personnel of the Legislative Council for a moment.” said Mr. Holland. “Nothing is further from my mind.” He believed that the abolition of the Legislative Council was generally desired by the people of New Zealand. He had no means of proving that except that to sav it was the policy of both parties. People would welcome its abolition. Mr.- Langstone: Hear, Hear. Opinion of Majority It was his opinion, continued Mr. Holland, that the majority of the members of the House believed that the council should be abolished. He intended to say something at the time of the second reading of the bill — Mr. Langstone: You’re optimistic, aren’t you? (Laughter). ‘Could I say to the Independent group I don’t think there is any question about a second reading,” said Mr. Holland. “And I will be able to remind the honourable gentleman and other members of his party of what they said previously." “If you can get a second reading, that will be all right.” said Mr. Langstone.

When the bill was introduced in 1947, said Mr. Holland, the member for Roskill and the member for Waimarino. Mr. R. Kearins. were very concerned because .they were not allowed to vote on the question of abolition. The constitutional difficulties had now been removed bv the Prime Minister and now the Parliament of the country was absolutely free to alter f he constitution. The member fo” ..Waimarino had spoken of sudden death for the Legislative Council. If he did not vote for the bill it would be sudden death for the member. Mr. P. G. Connolly (Government, Dunedin Central): And the member for Invercargill.

There was a slight difference in the : present bill, said Mr. Holland. The previous bill had provided that it should not come into operation until a date not sooner than 12 months after its passage. The present bill had no such provision and could come into operation immediately. Mr Holland spoke of the satisfaction which' had been expressed to him in Queensland by party leaders at the operation of the single chamber system of Government in that State. No Useful Service “In the years I have been here I don’t recall any useful service that members of the Legislative Council have performed to the public,” he said. “It is not that they don’t want to perform that service; it is just that they are not able to. In those circumstances why should we retain something that is of no value? “They should be a revising chamber and it just happens that they are not a revising chamber; they may be able to promote bills and it just happens that they don’t promote bills.’* Mr. Holland said it would be wrong to employ any tactics which would thwart the will of Parliament. He would ask the Prime Minister to use his influence and give his assistance in having the matter fully debated and put to a free vote. There was no justification for taking any steps which would side track the issue by making amendments and so on

Everyone on the National side of the House was free to speak for himself, said Mr. Holland, and he was not going to say they were all of one mind as to what should constitute the Legislature of the country.

Commenting on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Fraser said Mr. Holland had not pinned his faith to a single chamber Legislature. He had said (“Quite wisely, I think.” said the Prime Minister) that he would be prepared to look at some other form of revisory bodv. To Mr. T. C. Webb (Oppos. Rodney), who admitted that he was in favour of a single chamber. Mr. Fraser said: “I think you are auite wrong, entirely.” The Prime Minister expressed the view.that a single chamber would not meef the needs of the future. He said there was the problem how various sections of the community could be brought to assist as a political check. “Steel-Hard Discipline” “It is auite obvious that the discipline on the Opposition side is iron—in fact steel hard,” said the Prime Minister. “We know perfectly well there was a difference of opinion on the other side as there was on this side. Why not be frank about it Instead of that they were brought to heel.” The National Party was supposed to be free, said Mr. Fraser. Instead of that the Leader of the Opposition laid down the law that they must toe the line. If not, they could be dropped overboard. “I envy despotism possessed by the Leader of the Opposition,” he said. “It may be a paternal despotism, but it is there. My word, they do line up and salute their leader.” At this stage the House was in an uproar and the Speaker, Mr. R. McKeen, interceded to protest at the “dreadful conduct” of members and their “undignified language.” It was quite obvious that the Opposin' was in a quandary, said Mr. Fraser. It was not opposed to a second chamber; It did not stand for a single chamber. It was opposed to the Legislative Council only because it had a Labour majority That was all. “This method of abolishing something without something to put in its place is very hazardous and very dangerous so far as the constitution is concerned,” he said. i “No Need For Bicameral System” I Mr. Langstone said that the road I had been cleared after the introduc- . tion of a similar bill in 1947 for the ; constitutional abolition of the Upper House. “It has been an article of faith with me for many many years that we should have a single legislative chamber,” he said. “ T can see no need for

a bicameral system. Parliament is its own revision chamber. It is always busy amending its own legislation. Why we have another chamber in New Zealand is beyond my comprehension.” “The Upper House today is used purely and simply as a haven for those who have been defeated at a general election,” said Mr. F. W. Doidge (Opp., Tauranga). “Why should the Government be in a position to give a man a place in the Legislature as soon as the people have thrown him out at an election? If a referendum were held on the issue I am certain the abolition of the Legislative Council would be carried by an overwhelming majority.” Mr. J. R. Hanan (Opp., Invercargill) made it clear that he was entirely in favour of the bill. He described the Upper House as a sheer anachronism which should be abolished before any consideration was given to replacing it with a different body. The bill was read a first time. Mr. Holland indicated that he would be prepared to proceed with the second reading next Wednesday.