The Hastings Standard Published Daily FRIDAY, NOV. 12, 1897. TINKERING WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

Hastings Standard, Issue 474, 12 November 1897, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily

FRIDAY, NOV. 12, 1897. TINKERING WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

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.

The present Government has earned a notoriety for restrictive and destructive legislation, and it must be admitted that this class of legislation is the more easily initiated and requires but little mental capacity to frame. The Constitution Act Amendment Bill is characteristic of the destructive phase of our recent legislation, and the recklessness of the measure leads us into the belief that it is not seriously intended. "Whether the measure finds a place on the Statute Book of the colony or not, its authors have laid themselves out to grasp at popularity, and no doubt each particular school of faddists whose fads are embalmed in the Bill will necessarily sing the praises of the Ministry. The Referendum, the introduction of the Norwegian system of combined Chambers, the abolition of life appointments to the Legislative Council and Women Councillors are the main features of this legislative abortion, and we fail to see that there is any need at present for the enforcement of any one of these principles. What real necessity is there for the referendum ? W hen has Parliament dared to flout the popular will as expressed at the ballotbox. The cry for the referendum by a section of the community if not insincere is based upon a wrong conception of facts. Of course the plea is that by the referendum deadlocks between the two Chambers will be avoided. It is true that the two Chambers have been at variance at times but we cannot call to mind an instance when a deadlock was not satisfactorily arranged. With our triennial Parliaments and Legislative Councillors appointed for seven years the referendum is unnecessary. The Norwegian system of combined Chambers too is an inovation that is quite unnecessary. It is already obtained in a modified and effective form. When there is a disagreement between the two Houses on any particular question it is the invariable rule to appoint managers and the legislators so appointed sit together and discuss the points in dispute. The managers practically receive instructions from their respective chambers as to the course to be adopted and any arrangement arrived at by the managers must be ratified by the two Houses. This system has in the past answered very well and we think that to merge it into the Norwegian system will destroy it altogether. The managers now feel a certain sense of responsibility and the limitation of their numbers ensures the work being carefully and honestly attended to, but with the two Houses sitting together as one there would be ao responsibility and the victory would

rest with the big battalion. The third feature of limiting the time for which Councillors can sit in the Upper House is purely destructive. The Balance Government altered the constitution of the Legislative Council and abolished life appointments, those nominated to the Council since have a seven years right to sit in the Upper Chamber. Mr Ballance very rightly, we think, refused to make the alteration retrospective, consequently there are some Legislative Councillors who are lifers. But in the nature of things their number must grow beautifully less each year until the life member altogether disappears from the Council. There is no urgent necessity to push these men out just now—and they are men of ripe experience, full of the wisdom of years —■ and that is what the amending Bill aims at.

We have no sympathy with those who are for ever desirous of tinkering with the Constitution. We confess it is not perfect, it is however as perfect as human ingenuity can suggest, at any rate it cannot be improved by grafting on to it cuttings from Continental and American Constitutions. If our legislators would only keep well within the spirit of the Constitution which is built up on precedent there would be nothing to complain about. Our prayer to Parliament is to " please let the Constitution alone."