NON-CONTENTIOUS LEGISLATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16665, 25 September 1914, Page 6

NON-CONTENTIOUS LEGISLATION.

The observations by ■ tho Wellington "Post" which our Parliamentary correspondent quotes this morning illustrate very well what our Reform friends mean when they talk about non-con-tentious legislation. Our contemporary says in effect that Legislative Council reform was a highly contentious subject so long as the Reformers were out of office and wanted to criticise the appointments made to the Second Chamber by their opponents, but is not a contentious subject at all now they are on the Treasury benches and have exercised their power of nomination to the last man. " The sting was taken out of the question," it says, "when the advocates of Reform came into power and from the Treasury benches championed a measure which would have tho primary effect of limiting their own patronage." But the measure which Mr Massey and his colleagues have championed from the Treasury benches and which' they are now attempting to pass into law can do nothing to limit the patronage they already have distributed. We think we are correct in saying they have made more appointments to the Legislative Council during their term of office than any of their predecessors made during a similar period. "An elective Council," the "Post" goes on to say with these circumstances in view, " was no longer a challenge to the Government, but rather a self-denying ordinance on the part of the Government which the Opposition was free to consider on its merits." A self-denying ordinance, forsooth! Even before the Government's proposals took definite shape they provided Mr Massey with an excuse for nominating eighteen new members to the Council and so finally blocking the way to reform for the next seven j'ears. Does the "Post" expect the Opposition to " consider on its merits" the Bill that is to come before the House of Representatives without making any allusion to this astounding proceeding? If it does it must have a very confused idea of tho position. The fact that tho Council has been flooded with Reform nominees who cannot be removed till the third general election from now must be taken into account when considering the merits of the Bill. We are saying nothing against the elective principle or against the system ( of proportional representation, which can be discussed without the introduction of any party bitterness, but wo think our Reform friends will be simply inviting a revival'of the old acrimonious feeling if they attempt to pass the Legislative Council Bill through the House this session. There is not tho least need for them to do so. The measure will not come into operation till next year, and there is nothing to be -gained by rushing it through Parliament now when a number of the members are not in a frame of mind to appreciate the niceties of the distinction tho "Post" draws between contentious and noncontentious legislation.