THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1919. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17337, 8 December 1919, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1919. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

One of the most important planks in the policy of the Reform Party in 1911 wag an alteration in the constitution of the ■ Legislative Council from the existing method of appointment to election by direct vote of the people. In the face of almost insurmountable obstacles Mr. Massey secured the passage of legislation to give effect to that policy. His efforts to secure the first election in 1914 were baffled, but in postponing the operation of the measure until the following general election Parliament recognised that the return of the Government to office at the polls in the following month would confirm its policy, and lead to the change in the constitution of the Council at the next elections. Had •no other circumstances arisen, the first election of members of the Council should have taken place next week. The statement on the subject by Mr. Massey, published to-day, shows that the Government maintains its policy of an elective Upper House, and that the date at which the Act will come into operation will shortly be fixed. But while Mr. Massey has thus defined the attitude of his party, and answered the criticism of Mr. Fowlds and others, that it has lost its enthusiasm for this measure of reform, he does not- explain why the Act has been postponed. The reasons for the present position are to be found in the terms exacted by the Liberal Party on entering the Coalition of 1915. The first Legislative Council Bill was introduced in the Upper House in 1912, and rejected by a resolution to postpone consideration for a year. Thereupon the House of Representatives passed resolutions affirming the principles of the Bill, the essential clause being carried by 39 votes to 17. Again in 1913 the Bill was defeated in the Council, while the House confirmed its endorsement of the Government's policy by considerable majorities. The hostility of a majority in the Legislative Council having been established, 11 members representing both political parties were appointed, and the Bill was passed 'on to the Statute Book. That was within a month of the elections, and the provision that the Act should not come into operation until January 1, 1916, was inserted with a view to the contingency that the Government might be defeated at the polls. In that event, the Liberal Party, which had opposed the measure at every stage, would have had an opportunity during the session of 1915 to legislate on the subject, and to use its power of appointment to the Council to carry any measures it desired or to repeal the Bill. That position has never been questioned. Mr. Massey recognised that Sir Joseph Ward aDd his supporters, with a few exceptions, were as a party determined in their opposition to the reform, and he gave them an opportunity to obtain a mandate from the country, and to destroy the measure. That power was refused by the electors, and in 1915 Mr. Massey again met Parliament with a sufficient majority to carry on the Government, and, whenever peace was restored, to proceed with his programme of

domestic legislation, of which the Legislative Council . Act was one of the principal items. An important point is that the war had 'been in progress for three month? when the . House finally disposed of the 1914 Act.' The elections, followed, and though the .Opposition did not dare to make the repeal of the Act a ground for its appeal to the country, the Government's policy was confirmed. That should have disposed of the controversy, but one of the conditions of the coalition was that the operation of the measure should be postponed, and successive Bills were introduced and passed, not without opposition, suspending the change in the Council's constitution. The origin of that condition cannot be questioned. It was discussed frankly and by some members of the Council with outspoken disfavour on various occasions. According to a speech by Sir Francis Bell on July 20, 1916, every Liberal member of the National Cabinet " was opposed to the Act, and insisted that it should not be allowed to take effect" and the " bargain" having been made, "we cohld not continue the National Government unless we insisted on the agreement entered into with our present colleagues." Mr. Massey and Sir Francis Bell were bound by the undertaking they had given in 1915, and although it affected one of their chief policy measures, loyally provided for its complete fulfilment. The question for the country, however, is whether that condition, was fairly imposed by Sir Joseph Ward. The elections of 1911 gave Mr. Massey a. mandate to reform the constitution of the Legislative Council, and in 1914 that mandate was renewed. The measure had no relation to the conduct of the war, and a pledge had been given in 1914 'by Mr. Massey—and repeated annually since then—that Parliament would be given an opportunity to reconsider the Bill before it came into operation. Yet Sir; Joseph Ward, at a time when the war occupied all the energies of Parliament and the country, and. when his party was asked to cooperate with the Government in conducting the Dominion's share in the war, replied by insisting on the postponement of the Legislative Council Act, and continued to insist throughout the next three years. He maintained that upon the breaking up of the coalition he should have another opportunity, beyond that given him in 1914, to defeat the Government and to modify or repeal the Council Act. That was the price of his consent to the formation of the National Government, and the only possible comment upon this "bargain" is that it was a device to gain a party advantage in a time of national disaster. No doubt certain amendments in the existing legislation are necessary, but if the Opposition had been willing to accept its defeat upon the principle of the reform, those amendments might have been made and the Act brought into operation at the present electionsIt is for the country to judge whether the repeated pledges of Mr. Massey in this matter conform more exactly with the principles of democracy than the unyielding opposition of Sir Joseph Ward and his "bargain" of 1915 in the interests of the political patronage which the Liberal regime has so jealously guarded. The election manifesto of the Liberal Party does not expound any policy in regard to the Legislative Council, but the country must presume that if Sir Joseph Ward returns! to power the proclamation of which Mr. Massey speaks will not be issued, and the Council will again become the instrument of rewards for party services.