LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Grey River Argus, 24 August 1912, Page 6

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

AFTERNOON SITTING. THE ELECTIONS COUNCIL" BILL. The CoiinciL met at 2.30 p.m. Hon J. T. Paul continued the debate on the Legislative Council Elections Bill. He spoke from the outset against the nominative system which he said had necessarily, been adopted in the early development of. the country, but had been unpopular from its inception. He quoted a. remark of iSr George Grey's in which he had! •said a "nominated Upper- House did l away with the glorious fabric he had -framed." The nominee system made the whole Chamber distasteful to the people however well qualified in other respects the nominated .members j might be. He believed the Government was sincere dn their attempt to reform the Council. , . The idea of having two single electorates was the most., radical that had ever before" the Chamber. The ,BL!1 would . result in the Council being composed in exact proportions of the considerable schools of thought of ,the country. Mr. Samuel's speech proved that he was not even, the beginning of' a democrat. He pointed, out that a modified Hare system of proportional representation had been introduced into Tasmania and had satisfied labor and all other parties. Legislators existed to discharge the duties of the public and ' his main argument was that no member of Parliament ought to exist unless he was authorised by the j voice of the people. If present proposals were carried they, at- least, would be in. a better position, to secure an ideal legislative system. His . opinion was that one chamber should suffice. It was hard enough to get | reforms through one chamber, letalone two. If ; this measure were adopted and the Council made, truly representative of the people, the .system would be forced upon the other Chamber.- He advocated a higKer payment of the members of the Council df elected. Sir W. J. Stewaxd contended that our representative institutions failed to correctly represent the opinions ofthe people and a proportional, method of representation was desirable, but it was with the other ck am b"er that reform should begin. If the Bill-pass-ed in its present form then; the Council should be the dominant Body, because dts representation would be more perfect. The relations of the two bodies would then have to be reconsidered, especially in relation to finances. ' ■ The Hon C. Louisson. said the Bill certainly was worthy of better treatment than proposed by the amendment. ' They should acknowledge that there was strong public feeling that the nominative system should yield to it. He however disagreed with the 1 proposed machinery to give, effect to this change as the electorates were unworkable, and only the "ticket' ■ or wealthy man would have a chance. He prefered the fort)' single electorates bill, which was. crude and inapplicable, but better methods could- be introduced. ; . The Council then adjourned till 8 p.m. The. Council resumed at 8 p.m. The Hon R. A; Loughnan said that only recently Asquith's 'Government provided for a nominative Upper Chamber on the Home Rule Bill. Most of the clamour against the Council as at present constituted was due to a desire of the' public to abuse anybody they could. The Bill proposed the payment of £"200 per annum which was quite insufficient to pay a candidate's canvassing expenses, much less to provide a living pay. He intended to oppose this measure. The Hon J. E. Jenkinson. said he had never heard of a policy measure being introduced in more apologetic way than this Bill had been. Mr. Bell had not .given sufficient justification for .the Bill. The Hon. J. T. Paul said' he had advanced better reasons far supporting the measure than Mr. Bell had. Sir' William Russell had in 1891, expressed the opinion that a nominative 'Upper Chamber was preferable 1 to an elective Chamber. Mr. W .C. Buchanan contended that it was iryossible to do without borrowing jfftogether. He pointed out that while last year, our income de-