LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18461, 26 July 1923, Page 6

LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE.

The debate in the Legislative Council 011 Mr. - Wilford's Justices, of the Peace Amendment Bill has raised the question of the Council's right to persist in rejecting measures approved by the House of Representatives. The merits of the particular measure hardly affect the question. The House has, in two different Parliaments, affirmed the principle embodied in the Bill, and lit is therefore now urged that, although members of . the Council may | not be convinced of the wisdom of the measure, they should not oppose I its being placed upon the Statute Book. This is the view of Mr. Oliver Samuel, who speaks with the authority of an eminent lawyer versed in constitutional principles and practice. ■ He has the support of others in the Council. On the other hand, Sir Francis Bell, also em*>fi qualified to view the legal artpeH- of the matter, contends that the ' Council should always act as ■ a thinkjJJft chamber, and never merely as a ' oting one. Where such authorities differ, it is obvious that there are two sides to the question. The measure itself, although its principle was canvassed somewhat at last election, cannot be regarded as of ; absorbing interest, or great moment. It may even be said that, in giving it approval,- the House did not give it fully serious consideration, preferring perhaps to throw-the responsibility for its passage upon the Council—a course of action reflecting little credit upon the House. Yet the Council cannot assume that the House failed to do its duty. The measure has been sent up, and the Council must regard' it as embodying the views of the other Chamber. That being so. there would seem to be good ground for Mr. Samuel's position. In a bi-cameral system, having one elective . House, it 'is ! understood . that the will of that representative Chamber must be para- ! mount in the event of a serious and i stubborn v. disagreement between it and the nominated assembly. Power to check hasty legislation and to criticise imperfect and perilous measures does not include the right to stand for ever in i the . way of the popular Chamber's desire. • When formal ; means of reconciling the op-

j posing 'opinions fail, the elective | Assembly : has power,-, by adding, to the xpersonnel. of .. the recalcitrant Chamber -or taking other steps, to compel " eventual acceptance of its will, v ,By the ' Parliament Act, of Great Britain, the House ••• of Commons has : power to ; present a Bill direct to the King after its repeated rejection -by the Lords. Thus the non-elective ' Chamber, ' ■ although under no obligation to sink its difference of opinion, has no practical power 1 finally to obstruct the will of the Commons. The constitution of the Australian Commonwealth provides that, in the event of a measure being twice rejected by the Senate after being sent up by the House of Representatives, there' shall be a dissolution of both Houses. In that instance, both Houses are elective. Similarly, under the provisions of our own elective Legislative Council Act—whose presence among the statutes seems to be studiously forgotten by members of Parliament there is provision for a joint session of both elective Chambers to deliberate and vote finally upon a measure twice thrown out or prejudicially amended by the Council in , opposition to the House. ; The principle of the acceptance of the views of the electorate as expressed through its elected representatives, has. therefore, great weight, and it would seem that the duty of a nominated Chamber is to give effect," after the utterance of such protest as may be deemed advisable, to the will of the directly chosen representatives of the people.