The Ensign. FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1914. COUNCIL REFORM.

Mataura Ensign, 3 July 1914, Page 4

The Ensign. FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1914. COUNCIL REFORM.

The t of the Govern men fc to reform tlio constitution of the Legislative Council was discussed bv those who toolf part in the debate on the imprest Supply Hill last week. It was con-J tended by Sir Joseph Ward (Loader of { the Opposition) and others that the Government has not- had a mandate of the people "to uiake the Coiurcil an elective body. This cannot he • substantiated, as the late Opposition went to the eountrv ivith a platform, one of the planks of which provide for an elective Upper House. This platform was endorsed outright in 38 electorates, and three others evidenced their dissatisfaction with the then state of affair® by returning members .pledged to vote against the party in power. In addition iit is well known that Mr G. W. 'Russell (Avon) and a number of other •members had expressed their'desire to have an elective Upper House during the course; of last Parliament. This being the case, it is reasonable to presume that by sending these gentlemen back to Wellington the electors endorsed their vioivs as t ! o the wisdom of altering the constitution of. the .Council. Furthermore, live members of the present Opposition supported the resolutions submitted to the House in 1912 affirming the desirableness of making the Council an elective body. The Government is, therefore, undoubtedly within its rights in proceeding with the measure. The expressed intention of. the Government to allow the operation of the reform to stand 1 ' over until the first session of next Parliament. outs away any justification for the objection of the Opposition. This shows commendable foresight and statesmanship -on the part of the sMinistry. By deferring the operation of the Legislative Counc-i'l Relhnru Bill 1 t'ill after the session of 1915 the Government permits the reconsideration of the issue at the general elections this year. Thus, if there is anything in the Opposition contention that the country did not 2' vo a mandate for Upper House reform in 1911, the election's of 1914 can operate as a recall. Let the Liberals go to the poll with a repeal plank hiigh in their platform, and the 'Liberal Ministry of 1913 (if there is one) will find itself unfettered by the trammels of a reform-in-being. All they have to do is to persuade the electors to -return, them. The Government is thus aietihg with admirable''fairness. Let us presume that Pvt. Hon. W. F. Ma.ssey (Primo Minister) had placed sufficient new members in, the Council to carry the' Hill, and that it then came into operation ait once. At the election in December a number of Councillors would be elected uijder its provisions. These with the nominees of tue Government .would effectively stop any alteration if the Liberals, had' gained a majority in the Lower House pledged to repeal the elective law. By its action the Government leaves the'final issue to the people in December. Jf 'they consider the eta tive principle a wrong one they will elect representatives who will repeal the measure; if they think an elective Council will be to the advantage of the country generally they will support the Maas'sy Government's action.' Hon. H. D". Bell (."Minister for Internal' Affairs) in explaining the reasons for postponement until 1915 said: "The ■proper course is for this Parliament to act and to put tipon the Statute Book legislation effecting the change, leaving matters in •such-a condition that the next Parliament will be free .to repeal it. ilf the Massev Government, had desired to deal with 1 this constitutional question on mere party lines it would not have proposed to leave the door still open for repeal by the other party. It is because of its sense of responsibility, its desire to take no advantage of the other party, and its determination to leave a clear field to both parties upon ail important constitutional question, that the proposal to follow the precedent of 1875 iiivs been made." The precedent of 1875 was the .abolition, of the provinces. Then, as now, a big constitutional alteration was involved, an# it passed Parliament in the final session. To give .the new Parliament opportunity to .reconsider the issue, operation. of the Bill was deferred and /it did not come into force till after the session of 1876. The Opposition has •ariiticised the Government .for expressing its intention :to increase the number of sovcn-year Councillors to carry its Bill; ■but it must in fairness be .remembered that in 1912 the Massey Government carried through the House .of Representatives a Bitl providing for thr.eeyear nominations in future. This Bill was disapproved of by "the ■Counril and was thrown out. The Wellington 'Post' cioiisiders that the Government should again introduce this Bill, so that future nominations would be for three years. If this were done, the .Government would lav itself open to another rebuff. It is better to aet it proposes, when the electors can confirm or disagree with the proposal at the election, in December.