ANTI-CLIMAX TO HOLLAND’S BILL ON UPPER HOUSE

Grey River Argus, 18 August 1949, Page 5

ANTI-CLIMAX TO HOLLAND’S BILL ON UPPER HOUSE

SURPRISE ENDING TO THE DEBATE

Government Said To Have Bill Also In Preparation

WELLINGTON, Aug. 17.

. The galleiy in the House of repre ’ sentatives wnich is reserved for mem ' oers of the Legislative Council ti enable them to hear debates in th' f Lower House was not occupied a l f. 30 tonight, when the Leader ,of th 1 Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland, rose b move the second reading of his Legis . lative Council Abolition Bill. Latei ' however, one member of the Counci 1 entered the gallery. ■ ! . Mr Holland said the council —as i • was not constituted—performed ni useful function, its abolition was ii the National Party’s policy. It hai ■ always been the policy of the Labou Party. The appointees to the Counci were once supposed to be chosen fo: their inciepenuent views; he said. To day one had little chance of appoint I ment unless one were of the righ colour. A majority of the presen i Councillors made-no secret of theii Labour Party affiliation. They at tended caucuses of the Parliamentary Babour Party. That was all right. 1. at the end of this year there were e change of Government, it would b( unthinkable that a mojority in th« council should vote against legislation the National Party had beer elected to enact. It would be equally intolerable if present Councillors, because of a change of Government were required to vote against theii melong convictions. Mr Holland asserted that the Legislative Council’s real purpose today was to provide acknowledgement of services rendered to the party ir 'power. There were three or four members of the Council or whom thai could not be said. It was largely true *T don't know one person in Nev Zealand of the many who would like to be appointed to the Legislative Council who wants to face an election to get there," he said. Legislative Councillors during the 1947 inquiry suggested the Council should surrender its power to veto Government legislation. It was too much, m any case, to expect Councillors whose teappointment was in prospect to vote against Government measures. Mr Holland said his party sought the abolition of the Council on principle, but not because it had a Laboui majority. He asked that the debate be thrown open to members to spear freely according to their convictions “I know where the member for Roskill will be. I know where the member for Waimarino should be. and the members for North Mioie, Ml Albert, and the rest,” he said. A Government voice: And you know where y r ou have member for Invercargill to be!’ Mr Holland said every .Opposition member would vote for the bill. , Some of his colleagues, he said including Messrs Algie, Oram, Mai shall and Hanan though that there should be safeguards to a one-chambei legislature. Those safeguards need not necessarily lie in a reconstitution of the Unper House. There were actually no safeguards today. It was patent to everybody that when a member depended on the Government for re-appointment to the Upper House when his term expired, he could not be free. PRIME MINISTER IN REPLY ’Pt Hon P. Fraser said that Leader of the Opposition had raised many 7 uncertainties and also many' possibilities, which even the Government had never considered before. Mr Fraser then moved an amendment which in effect would postpone consideration of the bill three months. An Opposition voice: "Same old d °Mr’ K. J. Holyoake (Nat., Pahiatua): Hoary with age. Mr Fraser: It is just as time-hon-s a li ? oured as the Legislative Council itMr W. A. Sheat (Nat., Pahiatua): What about the referendum 7 Mr Fraser said that there was no u-e in prolonging this discussion. He Lad listened to the Leader of the Opposition with great interest. But there was one constitutional point which he (Mr Holland) did not solve. What would happen he asked, if the Opposition became the Government and if it introduced drastic changes, such as the altering of the social security, or of the conditions of work or of 'any of the good things which the Labour Government had done 7 That was the question that the people would like to have answered. How did the Opposition propose to get this bill passed by the Upper House : asked Mr Fraser. No Government could stand, or tolerate, an Upper House that- iiHistrated the will of the Lower House, and no GovernorGeneral, today, would refuse the request of a Prime Minister who went to hint' and said that there was a hostile majority in the Upper House and that he wanted a majority there, which would conform to the will of

th lf D by P accident, the Opposition did become the Government, that would be the method that would have to be adopted said the Prime Minister. There was no other way for this bill to be passed, other than by having a majority in the Upper House. The Upper House had served the country very well, and the Opposition objected to it, not because of the Upper House itself, but because a majority of the members in it were of an opposite political tram .of thought. . ~ . Mr Holland: That is unworthy of y °Mr Holyoake: Is that why the Prime Minister opposed it in the past ? m Mr Fraser: “It was a Tory Upper House, and it was opposed to everything progressive. Mr Fraser said that, if the Opposition gained the Treasury benches, it would have to appoint a majority m the Upper House'to carry their bill. Mr Holyoake: We will have to appoint a suicide squad ? Mr Fraser said that, in spite of the four members of the Opposition who were holding the view that, with a single-chamber legislature, there should be safeguards, the Leader of the Opposition had not taken the nsK with this bill. In other words he was ready to empty out the baby with the bathwater !

P.A. WELLINGTON. Aug 17 The debate on Mr Holland s Bill had a surprise ending, After a number of speakers had taken part, Hon. A McLagan resumed his seat at lU.zp, saying that he would give the Opposition the opportunity of participating in the vote. - p At this point, however, Mi B. Kearins (Govt., Waimarino) rose and took the Government Whips and the Prime Minister and Mr McLagan by surprise. , „ , , Mr Kearins said that it would be important for the House . to know that the matter of abolishing the Upper House was under consideration by the Government, and it had been co for some months. . As it was a constitutional matter, no private Member could possibly bring down implementing legislation. Even if a vote was carried, he said, no on e knew better than the Leader of the ’Opposition that it had no pos-

sibility of becoming law. The only way fon this Bill to get past another place was for the Government to initiate the legislation. It would not be his fault,, he said, if the Government did not bring down a Bill. It was just making a joke of the whole thing now. He was sure that a Government Bill would be supported by the rank and fllG - x , r. Mr Kearins was interrupted by Mr Speaker calling for order to quell a mounting hum from both sides of the House, ‘and almost immediately he said that the time had come for him to adjourn the House. “The debate will be set down for resumption next Wednesday evening”, said Mr Speaker. The House then adjourned at 10.30 until 2.30 to-morrow.