Upper House Reform.

Northland Age, Volume 3, Issue 7, 18 September 1906, Page 6

Upper House Reform.

Sir William Steward moved the second reading of his Legislative Council Election Bill in the Bouse on Thursday night last, a debate being thus raised on reform of the Upper Chamber. He reminded the House of the late Premier’s expression that the Legislative Council should either be ended or mended. New Zealand could not depart from the Bi-cameral system without many years’ struggle for legislation in the Imperial Parliament. Personally, he thought the Legislative Council performed a useful service, and he felt it ought to be mended and not ended. He quoted a number of difficulties associated with direct election, and election by the members of both Houses, the term of office to be for seven yean. His bill provided for a Council of forty, ineluding two Maoris. By the end of next October there would, he said, be ten vacancies in the Legislative Council. The Premier said it had become the fashion to urge that the Upper House should be ehol»hed,>t they could not guttlfMM?* l * reason

agreed upon iu New Zealand, it would take many years of persistent agitation to secure such au important change in the Constitution. He believed in the necessity for a revising chamber, but whether the initiative should be entirely removed from the Upper House was another matter. There had been a material change in regard to the Beferendum, which had been rejected by the Upper House in the past. If, however, there was a strong desire by the country for any measure it would be focussed in the Lower House, and the Legislative Council would have to give way. There had been deadlocks in Victoria, where both legislatures were elective, and there had also been deadLi Its iu England, where the hereditary principle prevailed. If good appointments were made to fill the vacancies the public would say that before a good system was given up they must be sure that it would be superseded by. a better one. Under the Hare' elective .system, with large coustituences,' only the wealthier members of the community could stand with any hope of success. There was no case in which men appointed by the Government had been shown to have acted dishonourably either in public or private. If good appointments were made and public opinion was behind the administration of the day, members would very soon find the wind veering round against the opinions of those who urged a change.

Mr. Massey declared himself in favour of direct election by the people. As the bill proposed a more democratic system than that now prevailing, he would vote for it, though he did not believe it went far enough. It would he a great mistake to do away with the bi-cameral system, but members should be elected by a modification of the Hare system, two constituencies returning one representative.

The Hou. Hall-Jones condemned the proposal in the bill that election of councillors should he by secret ballot. This, he said, was contrary to the principle by which members were always bound to show their constituents how they voted.

The Hon. James McGowan declared that the Upper House was useful, and until something better was proposed he would oppose the bill. To the Ministerial arguments Sir William Steward’s general reply was that men who had power naturally did not like giving it up. He had presented a practicable bill, and if it' was adopted both Houses would, on October 1 Gill, have a voice in the placing of ten men into the Upper Chamber. Upon division the second reading was carried by 34 votes to 24.