The Hastings Standard Published Daily. THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1896. THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Hastings Standard, Issue 93, 13 August 1896, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1896. THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

Some startling changes are proposed in the Bill which was introduced into the House by Message from the Governor on Tuesday last. The last session of an expiring Parliament is not the best time for introducing a measure involving such drastic reforms, and we do not for a moment believe that it is intended to press the Bill. We live in a period when progress is the watchword of communities and nations, and progress in a constitutional sense must come through reforms. The relations of the two Houses of Parliament, the privileges enjoyed by each, and their rights, are built up by precedents, and some of them are more remarkable for their stupidity than for anything else.

The Constitution Act Amendment Bill now before the House proposes certain reforms which will scarcely prove acceptable. The extinguishment of the life appointments of the present holders by gradual retirement is the natural result of the Act which gave to us septennial Councillors. The abolition of the life appointment is a mistake. The Legislative Council will cease to exercise that calm, deliberate, and independent judgment which it is essential should be exercised when the popular mind is inflamed or excited. Limiting the term of office will rob the Councillors of their independence, and convert them into so many party units voting at the dictation of the party managers. However, while there are some members in the 1 Council whose appointments are limited to seven years, it becomes desirable to place all the members on an equal footing in the matter, but it is scarcely possible that the Council itself will agree to the limitation. Under the new measure women are to be eligible for appointment, which may os may

not be a mistake. At first glance it does not seem quite right to place women in the Council, where only well-tried and seasoned politicians of mature years should be sent. It will require very strong argument to make this part of the Bill palatable to the two Houses. The provision which enables the two Houses to sit as one when a Bill has been twice passed by one House and twice rejected by the other, is a very desirable reform, and it is also right that under such circumstances a majority of the combination should decide the question. We should like to see a clause inserted in the Bill according to Ministers of the Crown the privilege of addressing either House. Such a privilege, however, should not carry a vote in the Chamber in which the privilege is exercised. What reasonable ground can there be advanced for preventing, say, the Premier attending the Council and explaining to the venerable gentlemen there the scope and intentions of one or more of the Ciovernment Policy Bills. The Councillors surely have as much right to have such matters fully and fairly placed before them by the head of the Government as the members of the House of Representatives. There are many other reforms dealing with the relationship of the two Houses and their privileges that should be dealt with, but as it is certain the present Bill is not to be pressed, it does not so much matter. It is, however, an excellent measure for the elections, and by that time the Government will no doubt have elaborated and completed it. It is a winning hazard for the elections, and Mr Seddon is too shrewd a politician not to know and appreciate this.