OPPOSITION ATTEMPT TO DELAY UPPER HOUSE ABOLITION BILL DEFEATED BY 44 TO 34 VOTES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23315, 26 July 1950, Page 9

OPPOSITION ATTEMPT TO DELAY UPPER HOUSE ABOLITION BILL DEFEATED BY 44 TO 34 VOTES

(Special) . WELLINGTON, July 26. The amendment to the second reading; of the Legislative Council Abolition Bill, proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr, P. Fraser, was defeated in the House of Representatives last night by 44 votes to 34, the division being on party lines. The only absentee was Mrs. G. H. Ross, Minister for the Welfare of Women and Children, who is on official business in Christchurch, Mr. Fraser’s amendment sought to defer the second reading until alternative proposals, referred to in the National Party’s election nianifesto, had been considered.

Continuing the debate, the AttorneyGeneral, Mr. T. C. Webb, asked why Parliament should continue to put the people of New Zealand to the expense of maintaining an institution that had outlived its usefulness. He claimed that the Legislative Council had forfeited all rights to its existence after its attitude to the abolition of the country quota. It should not have allowed such a bill to pass until the people had had the opportunity to give some expression of opinion and until the party in power had gone to the country, saying that it intended to abolish the country quota, said Mr. Webb. He said that the abolition of the Legislative Council was in the National Party manifesto, but the manifesto had said it would be abolished “as at present constituted.” If the country waited until all the alternative proposals were examined then they would be waiting for the next three 3'cars. Mr. Webb said he thought that a one-chamber Government in the Bi'itish Commonewalth could be trusted to take the right course in any emergency because of the British administration of justice, which meant that the British people would approach all questions in a constitutional way and would not panic. Democratic Institution

Mr. R. McKeen (Opp., Island Bay) said that the Government was intending to abolish a part of the country’s democratic and Parliamentary institutions. This was a step similar to those under which dictatorships were established. Mr. McKeen suggested that the National Party’s election platform definitely promised that there would be some form of safeguard against hasty or ill-considered legislation and he doubted if half a dozen newspapers in New Zealand supported the Government in proposing the abolition of the Council without first presenting > an alternative. If the Government wished to make the Council effective it could Introduce bills in that chamber and have a Minister there with that duty. He said he could not imagine a Conservative Party taking up the attitude that the constitution should be weakened and he believed that what was proposed was a danger to our democracy. The Minister of Works, Mr. W. S. Goosman, declared that in the 11 years he had been in Parliament he had not seen the Council do anything for the good of the country. They met for short periods and then adjourned for long periods. No, Workable Alternative Not one workable alternative had been suggested, said Mr. Goosman, and the speech by the Leader of the Opposition was one of the weakest he had ever made. Mr. Goosman contended that there was no alternative. There was one occasion when the members of the council could have justified themselves and that was when the Labour Government abolished the country quota. “Time will tell whether we will restore the country quota,” said Mr. Goosman, replying to questions by Mr. Fraser. Mr. P. Kearins (Opp., Waimarino) said he was supporting the amendment at the moment because he was fearful of what the Government intended to put in place of the council. Would the Prime Minister (Mr. S. G. Holland) give a definite pledge that the Government stood irrevocably for a singleparty system? Mr. Holland: Your friends are seek-, ing an assurance that we will put something in place of the council. Mr. Kearins: I want to see the Upper House go and when it does I do not want to see it come back. That is my personal opinion and everybody in this House knows where I stand on this issue.

Rather than see the Legislative Council abolished as it was constituted at this moment and something else put in its place of a similar nature just to suit the particular political party that was in power, he would prefer that it should stay as It was, because, if it did stay as it was at present, it would kill itself anyway, declared Mr. Kearins amid mingled cheers and laughter. Only Action Possible

Every Government, he said, had the right to see that its legislation was not obstructed and he maintained that the present Government did the only thing it could do in packing the council in order to secure a majority. That had been done by every Government in the past. The Minister of Education. Mr. R. M. Algie, said that the people of New Zealand expressed their sovereignty in the only right way they could and that was through the elected chamber of their own choice. They could elect that chamber and they could change it as they liked.

“Is it right then, or is it even logical, that, having got all the power into their own hands and having the authority to elect their own Government, they should set up the machinery to tie the hands of the body they elect?” asked Mr. Algie. Mr. Fraser: Is not Britain a parallel case?

Mr. Algie: The parallel between Britain and New Zealand is the only one you can use inside the Commonwealth. It was incumbent upon him to explain why he supported the present bill in view of the fact that he had for so long supported the bicameral system, continued Mr. Algie. The circumstance which prompted him to change his view was the fact of the passage of legislation in 1947. the adoption of the Statute of Westminster and the Constitutional Law Amendment Act. In the past, said Mr. Algie, he had stood for the two-chamber system be-

cause it represented a system of checks and balances which he thought was part of the constitution and necessary in a self-governing society. The object of the two-chamber system was, of course, to provide checks and balances and the necessity for them was that, in some communities, throughout history there had been rivals for political power and the whole purpose of a constitution was to regulate the distribution and exercise of political power where there were rivals for that power.

Mr. Algie said that the question of a substitute for the Legislative Council was a real and serious difficulty. “I have no doubt that the people are looking to us to find something to put in the place of the Legislative Council,’’ he said. “I hope the,Prime Minister will seek something, though I am bound to say I do not know how successful he can be in discovering it. "The substitute must be so valuable and useful and so good that the normal run of political parties would want to accept it and keep it.’’ Mr. Algie said he believed that could be found and he would like the opportunity of helping to find it. Mr. W. E. Parry (Opp., Arch Hill): How about us finding it before we pass the bill? “So many of us believe in our own heart of hearts that this body we are in should be the sole controlling body,” Mr. Algie continued. Mr. T. H. McCombs (Opp.. Lyttelton): Will the Government say that straight out? Search For Substitute Mr. Algie replied that the Prime Minister had said there would be a search for a substitute. He himself had been one of those who had asked Mr. Holland to say it. Mr. H. E. Combs (Opp.. Onslow) claimed that the Government had postponed dealing with the possibility of providing a written constitution. This attitude would last until January 1 next. In the next session, he thought, the Government would bring forward a constitution bill. Into that, he suggested. could be written all sorts of things that could cripple an incoming Government. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Opp., Waitakere) said that if an attempt were to be made to preserve the Upper House the only use he could see would be something in the nature of select committees of the House. He did not know if this would be practicable but that would be about the limit of its useful activity. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. W. A. Bodkin, described the Opposition amendment as an attempt to evade the issue. Labour members when formerly in Opposition always advocated the abolition of the Upper House, but today they were beating an ignominous retreat. It was preposterous to suggest that a constitution should be framed because it would only frustrate subsequent Governments. “Puppet” of Government

The council in its earliest days was an ultra Conservative institution and when it became a nominative body it was simply a puppet of the Government of the time. It had failed to justify itself and the recent appointment of members of the National Party showed, by the necessity to take that step, the futility of the institution. Mr. Bodkin suggesed that members must take a realistic view and for that reason they could not justify making a place of refuge for their supporters. Mr. C, F. Skinner (Opp., Buffer): They are your people. The Minister: And we are going to exterminate them. (Laughter).

“When this council is dead and buried there will be no resurrection morn,” added Mr. Bodkin. “My feeling is that, before voting £30,000 a year, I have to be convinced that the council serves some useful purpose." Mr. W. Nash (Opp., Hutt) considered that New Zealand had more sovereign power than any other English-speaking country. The public will ought not to be thwarted.

There could be arguments for both the unicameral and bicameral system, but the biff in its present form had not been placed before the people, declared Mr. Nash. He considered that If the Government abolished the council then there should be some compensation for its members who had given up jobs to go there.

Mr. W. A. Sheat (Govt., Patea) said that from the time Labour first took office the council had been flooded with Labour stalwarts seeking to make the sacrifice of becoming members of the council. The attitude of members on the Government benches, said Mr. Sheat, had been clear beyond any possible doubt for years. A clear-cut issue faced the House today and members on the Opposition benches had to face that issue because the time had passed when, by moving amendments and, by various other tactics, they could dodge, the facts of the question.