WHY NOT ABOLISH THE COUNCIL?

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 7 September 1926, Page 8

WHY NOT ABOLISH THE COUNCIL?

(To the Editor). Sir, —My question •refers, let me explain, not to the Borougli Council, nior to the Council of the League of Nations, nor yet to- the Council of the Chamber of Commerce, but to that sanctuary for the superannuated, that; gilded sepulchre for the meritorious aged, the New Zealand Legislative Council. Your correspondent “More Daylight,” iu writing of the defeat of daylight isitving, suggests a. referendum on the: abolition of the Council, “or else to decide whether it .should he elective.” But what use would such a referendum, be? And how, would we eve®; obtain power to take such a referendum ? To do so would require the authority of an Act of; (Parliament) This would .require the. .sanction of tUe Legislative .Gouncd'l'., And wJUo would suggest that the Council .would, consent to a vote, .of the people being taken to decide its fate? The result of a vote on abolition would be a foregone conclusion, and surely the Council is sufficiently strongly possessed of the instinct of /self-preservation to cause it to .prevent any such vote being taken? No, tiie only -way the Council cam die is by its own .hand, or else by jsomlo future Government deciding to make no new appointments after the existing ones expire. As for the .suggestion that the Council should be made elective, why should a referendum be taken, to decide this when an Act has been on the Statute Book for over ten years past providing for this very thing, and all that is necessary is for the Gtoverinment to pass an 0 rder-in -Counci l bringing the Act into force? No party was ever returned to power under- a more definite pledge -to carry out reform than the Reform, party was pledged in IDII to reform the Legislative Gounod. As the late Mr Massey said at that time: “If reform was necessary In the House of Lords, it was twenty times more necessary in the case of our Legislative Council. The system of appointment for a term of seven year* was unsatisfactory, for i t had been show n that, although a man might be independent when appointed, yet in the course of two or: three years he lost his independence and .became a. subservient supporter of the party in power.” The question on which a referendum: mightmore appropriately be taken is therefore the question whether the Reform Party should be obliged to honour its, pledges. This is the simple issue, and it 'iis about time that it was faced.

As for tne general question whether the Council should be made elective, there is every reason to hope 'that it will not be. Abolition is the only -reform worth advocating. An elective Council 'would be little improvernJenit on the present one. Do we elect two borough councils or county conn cite, or two harbour boards to .keep an eye on each other in local .government matters? Does a big industrial iconcern administering affairs probably more extensively than those of this. Dominion elect two boards of directors, one to “check” the other? Is there, ,in fact, any other sphere of government or administration in which the need for two rival governing bodies is. even .suggested? There is mo fundamental difference ■between Parliament and any other governing institution in this respect except the historical difference that our Parliamentary institutions' are based upon .the English model, which dates, back to the time when .separate “estates of the rea-lpi” were recognised to exist iwhich had to meet in .separate houses—the Lords and the' Commons. But in a country which recognises no division of the people into separate “estates of the realm,” which its based upon complete adult suffrage, which aspires to be, a.nd claim,s .to be, selfgoverning, what conceivable justificacion can there be for. two' repfesbiitntive chambers? If two can be justified why stop at two? 'Would, it not be ju.st as sensible to. have three or four,_ or even, move? If'one institution properly .representative of the- people- is in-; competent fd translate the' wii! of the people into legislation, what guarantee is there that two will do .any better? If one is liable to err is nob the p'ossibil.itv of error merely doubled by lengthening the process by which legislation roaches the. Statute Book? The very idea of having two rival ,chambers each claiming to be representative of the people’s will is manifestly preposterous. The case against an elected second chamber has been well stated bv Mr Sidney Webb in the- following words: “To :set up a. second exponent of the people’s will in opposition or rivalry to tiro first would inevitably be to create opposition, conflict and deadlock. What 'would 'be the use of an elected second chamber .if it always agreed with the other House? How could differences of opinion, between them on -minor points, or -unpopular causes, or 'abstruse issue ever .be decided? How could‘the quarrels -between, them he decided, even on great .issues, without evil Wranglinlg and long delay, and -possibly the drastic remedy of a double dissolution, whenever there was a. frllure to -agrte?” What Webb advocates is a revising chamber, constituted ou tlie Norwegian model of a .small .second chamber elected from the popular chamber , and charged with the duties’ of criticising and revising .legislation as may be- required. The- case against a nominated chamber, on the other -hand, irema-ims as strong to-dav as it was when stated so forcibly by Mr M-assey in 1911. Yet what do we find? In the short time that has elapsed since last election Mr Coates has made eight new appointments to the Legislative Council, including the chairman of his own election committee, a retired: judge, and -two renegade Liberal's, Messrs.’Tsitt and Witty, wild assisted to keep Reform in office after it hi*d been defeated by the votes of the people. Mr. Coates says economy is necessary in public and private expenditure. The council costs some . £30,000 a year. Is' it worth its keep? If eight new- appointments can be made at a time- when economy is isp.,id to be' necessary, one hesitates to reflect what might have happened had this consideration not been so important. It is fair to assume that had economy not been-,so essential the appointments might have included not merely the chairman, hut the whole of Mr Coates’ election committee, besides every retired' judge in the country, the whoi'e executive of the Employers’ Federation, and perhaps a few of those self-effacing reformers, who '.so loyally ,stood aside at lr,st election in favour of more promising starters. Could anything be more farcical 1 or more repugnant to our ideas of demo, craey than this degrading business of “spoils to the victor?” Is it not high time tliflt, in the interests of clean politics and real -self-government, this useless excrescence -of a Legislative Council': were lopped off the body politic ? Until this is done our claims to be :a democratic people' must remain a hollow mockery and any advance toward® the complete realisation of that '.self-govern-ment which is better than good .government, wii'l he manifestly impossible.I am, etc., FABIAN. Hawera, Sept. 2, 1926.