THE REFEREN DUM.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4424, 2 August 1901, Page 5

THE REFEREN DUM.

The indications of health for the Referendum Bill arc not on a par with what an insurance doctor would term “a first* class life.” The Legislative Council does not like the measure, and is worrying it with an idea that an early grave is yawning for its much criticised bones. Up to yesterday hardly a word had been said in its favour, and its enemies, among whom arc many' good Liberals, had it all their own way. The proposal to give it the six months' "eoup-dc.grace” brought some rather lukewarm friends to. the front, and they gave the uh« happy measure little more than the “faint praise” which one poet at all events regarded as tho moot effective damnation. The whole thing is a trihiuo io the calmness cf tho political a: - ■ mospherc. It is, however, in calms that the best provision is made for storm's. To wait til! the storm is upon us is unprofitable, for the measures adopted arc sure to have tho bad flavour of panic.

It is ae well to understand tho exact character of tho Bill, standing as it is in such dubious position. The Bill proposes (1) that all Government measures brought down by Governor’s mee; sage shall, after two rejections by either Houso of Parliament, bo taken to ferendura; (2) that any measure may bo sont to referendum by agreement of both Houses; (3) that any resolution of both Houses may be treated in tho same way; i(4) that any measure rejected twice by tho Council may be sent to referendum by vote of the Lower House. The details of the referendum itself are simple enough. The vote must be taken between twenty-eight and ninety days of the close of the session in which the referendum becomes necessary; except in the case of a general election coming between two- ses sions, in which case the vote must bo taken on the general election day. The j result of tho arrangement would be the - reduction of unavoidable friction to a minimum. The criticism the Bill met with is not concerned with the mechanism of tho measure.

The best thing to be said—the only thing in favour of the principle as it stands in the- Bill—is that it is calculated to prevent deadlocks between the two Houses. It may be said that this does not amount to a great deal, as (1) there have been no deadlocks in the past, and (2) the changes in the person; nel of the Council have made deadlocks even less likely in the future. If there is anything in the deadlock argdment, it has its foundation in tho fact that this is a period of calm, which, as m have said, is the best period for the consideration of remedial and preventive measures. Tho conditions, however, are as we have stated them, and they prove that from the deadlock point of view there is no pressing need. The second and third provisions do not protend to contemplate deadlocks at all. They simply propose to allow Parliament to-efface itself in favour of the people. The two Houses would probably never agree on ttevtf point; that is to say, if one proposed a referendum. The second and third provisions, therefore, would be inoperative without , the first. Tho majority would have to get a Government measure brought down by message, and rejected twice, before it could get to referendum. The second and third provisions are clearly, therefore, unnecessary. The fourth, which gives one House a power which is denied to the other, is simply outrage; ous. Tho first provision, then, is the only one which remains worth considering. As before remarked, it would prevent deadlocks; and it may be said that the Referendum Act would do this in most cases without any necessity for taking the referendum poll.