NEW ZEALAND POLITICS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 259, 5 October 1912, Page 5

NEW ZEALAND POLITICS.

MILITARY PENSIONS. Wellington. Oct. 4. The Legislative Council met ..t 2.30. Replying to the Hon. C. 31. Luk-’, the Minister said that in accordance with its promise in the Financial Statement, the Government was gving full consideration to the report of the Public Petitions Committee on petitions from military settlers. A bill was now in print dealing with the position of military pensions. PUBLIC SERVICE BILL. The Hou. C. M. Luke, continuing the debate, said he did not thm.K there should be promotions to higher positions without practical expe: :- ence. The report of the Civil Service Commission showed that for at least six vents there had been political patronage in the servin' calling for reform. Where it did exist was outside the civil serviv*. and that should be stopped. Tim bill established an absolute autocracy. If the Commissioner s power was allowed t<> remain it would wreck the whole scheme. Tie was opposed to the principle of in autocracy, but as the House had by a good majority approved the be! he did not think it right to refuse to pass it. He gave assent to the bill with very grave misgivings. The Hen. O. Samuel sad that in the past six years there had been very littld to which even the most captious could take exception. He received the bill with misgiving, and would net be surprised if evil resulted from its adoption. As. however, the House had adopted it. nc did not think they could prevent the aim being carried cut. The Council, under the circumstances, would not be justified in opposing the measure. The Hon. W. Bcehan was speakingin opposition to the bill when the Council rose till 8. On resuming the Hons. Bcehan. ■ Mills, and McC.ardle continued thei debate. | The Council then rose. i

REFORM OF THE COUNCIL. THE ELECTIVE PRINCIPLE. MR. MASSEY’S MOTION. The House of Representatives met at 2.30.

Mr. Massey moved a motion cf which he had previously given notice to the effect that it is desirable that an alteration in the constitution •. f the Legislative Council shall be • ffected by the present Parliament ; that the alteration be from appointment by the Governor to election hv direct vote at the pells of electors qualified to vote at the general election for members of the House; that the election be upon the proportional system, and therefore by large electoral divisions; that the number cf elected members be 40. of whom 20 shall be elected at each general election for the House cf Representatives, every member to sit two Parliaments; that an electoral division for the Council shad be made coterminous with the aggregate of existing electorates for the House, and that provision be made for preserving to the House exclusive control of all matters cf finance, and also for cases where the Counc;l and the House ultimately fail i•> arrive at any agreement on any proposed legislation. He stated th.it Sir George Grey had always advocated an elective Upper Hous?. Such was one of the planks of their platform, on which they wen the election. He believed the reform would be brought about by them. He pointed out that a largo number of members of die Council had vote 1 for the bill introduced there, wh’ch showed that they affirmed the principle. His resolutions did not alb r the present pranel.ise. Some cf ice wisest and ablest men had expressed the opinion that the Council should Le elected. The system which obtained now was absolutely wrong. From; the point cf view of Parliament and - the people they could not get go rd results. They were nut wedded to; the principle of each island being an j electorates returning -10 member -, i have to divide the country into fourelectorate, returning 40 members. 1 They heard a lot of the proportional system being complicate.d. It notiiing cf the sort- It was more simple than the present system, ano, if put into opcrn'i;on. he was convinced there' would be less informs] votes than .at present. The sysi mi would do away v. ith parish-pump, polities and professional politicians. He hoped that when the time eunc some of the present members of I lie Council would be candidates and l e electrd. Provision would he mad * for the election cf two Maori meis-i bers. The Council would not '.e; able to initiate any legislation derJ-i ing with finance. If the Council m; ■ the House in conference on a matt, r; and no agreement was arrived at, 1 the Governor would be asked t-% grant a dissolution. He believed : n time that the system of proportion;'.! j representation would apply to ‘1: Lower House. They had promised the reform cf the Upper House, and ■ that would be put into effect 1.-efi :. , the next election. He felt sure that' the resolution would be carried by a] large majority of tire House. ]

AX OPPOSITION AMENDMENT. Mr. Russell said the carrying of the resolution would bring about a huge ‘ revolution in the Government of the country. He moved as an amendment to omit all words after the word “That,” and to insert the following, in lieu thereof: —“In the opinion <f the House it is desirable that the Government should state its proposals for the electoral reform of the House of Kept esent atives (as indi-: eated on page 15 of the Budge;) prior to the discussion of proposals for the alteration of the constitution. of the Council, the two quest 101 s being inseparably connected." He held that tcfcrtn of the method < f election of the Lower House should precede reform of the Council. The Opposition had for years fully recognised the necessity for reform < f the Council, but the real question was. Was there any necessity for al Second Chamber: Throughout tic?. Dominion there was a barge body ef opinion against its continuance. Eve n the Premier regained the Council ss being chiefly a revisory body. He

contended that if the proportional representational scheme had been in force during the last election the | Liberal-Labour Government would i have been in the Treasury benches I now. If that system were adopted i there would be no need for a Second I Chamber. The Premier should say | what he would do in the event of the I country deciding in favour of propori tional representation for both Chani- ; hers.

' Mr. Side.v said lie would vote for 1 the resolution as against the present i system. The House adjourned at 5.30. 1 A DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL. On resuming at 7.30 Mr. Allen con- ; tinned the debate. He contended that while Air. Russell’s amendment : was an indirect challenge to a policy 'measure of the Government it did not challenge the Government’s principle. In his opinion everyone who ' voted for the amendment voted : against the proportional representation system for the Upper House. ’ The Premier had given his word that : before this Parliament ended he j would introduce a measure dealing i with an alteration of the constitu--1 tion ci the L'pper House. He did not think the time had arrived for the i abolition of the Second Chamber. It ; was not possible that the Upper House would surrender any of its privileges without a struggle. They were fighting on the principle of whether the Council was to be nominated | or brought into closer touch with the 1 people of the country. He said the i second ballot had to go, and in its i place would be put a different meai sure, the contents of w’hich he was I not prepared to put before the House j that evening. ■ SIR JOSEPH WARD’S VIEWS. 1 Sir Joseph Ward believed that one j of the most fatal mistakes the House j was going to make was to have both i Houses elected by the people in the I same franchise, even if one was electied on large electorates. In a few i years the Council would become the I dominant House. Large electorates i would either play into the hands of the wealthy or into the hands of the party with the best organisation. A man with a lot of money would get the best results. He thought a system such as that outlined in the Governor’s Speech in February would give the best results. Nothing more revolutionary had ever been brought before the House than the election of the Second Chamber by proportional representation. Logically there .should be only one House under the proportional system. Mr. Fisher quoted figures to show that at the last Victorian Senate election Labour men swept the i whole eighteen seats, shewing that the seats were not won by the wealthy class. As to the size c.f the electorates, large ones would eliminate the parish-pump element. VARIOUS CRITICISMS.

Air. Payne said the only true system of election was to pool all votes and allow each party to be represented by the percentages of support it received.

Mr. Hanau considered that the purposes of democracy would be defeated if the other Chamber was so constituted as to be able to block the measures of the Lower House. He objected to both Houses being elected on the same franchise.

Air. Robertson said if the people had one firmly representative House on the proportional system there would be no need for a Second Chamber. His party would support the resolutions because they aimed in the direction of proportional representation. a principle they advocated. Mr. Ell considered it was a dangerous position to constitute a Second Chamber which would regard itself as equally powerful with the representative Chamber. Mr. Atmore said he could not support a law which favoured the rich man to the disadvantage of the poorer classes.

Mr. Witty contended that it was the Government's duty to give a lead to the House instead of asking for the opinion of the House.

i Mr. Veich contended that an elective Upper House would not work out satisfactorily. An Upper House 'in accord with the House of Representatives would be a superfluity. He approved of proportional representation. and would do his best to see it applied to the House. THE PREMIER IN REPLY. After midnight the Premier replied. He said there was scarcely anything to say, as nearly every member of the House had spoken in favour of the proposed system of election of the Upper House. The Government was not on a fishing expedition. They had already introduced a bill in the Legislative Council. The proposals in the resolutions were liberal, progressive and democratic. Those who voted against them were neither Liberal, Progressive nor Democratic. Mr. Russell’s amendment was negatived. Air. Massey's resolutions were carried after three clauses had been challenged. The House rose at 12.35.

NE TEMERE DECREE. PRESBYTERIAN S PETITION. [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL.] Wellington. Oct. 5. The Public Petitions Committee declined to make any recommendation on the petitions cf the Taranaki and Christchurch Presbyterian moderates :n connection with tlie Ne Tome re decree prating that the civil right and <.ocial interests of the community should be preserved.