ONE OF THE “REFORMS.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8181, 24 July 1912, Page 6

ONE OF THE “REFORMS.”

One plank of the present Government's platform prior to the general election pledged the party to reform the Legislative Council by making it elective.

Tho possible intentions of the Government in regard to the Legislative Council are just now being discussed upon the assumption that Ministers will forthwith introduce a Bill giving effect to the “reform” advocated by them prior to the general election. This “reform” we were told was to consist of making the Council an elective body, “members being returned upon the proportional system of representation by larger majorities.” Against the theory that if there is a second chamber it should be elective we. have nothing to say. The contention that in New Zealand a second chamber in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term is necessary can find from us no support. A revisory committee of three or four skilled lawyers would be quite adequate. The true position of the second chamber in any scheme o £ Parliamentary Government is one of the unsolved problems before democracies all the world over.

Without, however, just now discus-; sing tho bi-cameral theory, which has undergone great alteration during re-, cent years, we may say at once that the Government by merely making tho Legislative Council elective will accom-; plisl nothing that is of benefit to tho country. Unless the elective project is accompanied by enlightened proposals for settlement of disagreements be-1 tween the two Houses and also for re- j stricting the Council’s authority within eh finite boundaries, we will find ourselves worse off than ever. That this is a difficult task we willingly concede, but its solution can only be evaded at grave risk. We do not wish to be understood as advocates of the nominee system. The proposed duplication of the Lower House by elected members in a second chamber—chosen under a system which will give them greater claims to representation than those ip tho chamber below—is, however, a very doubtful instalment of “reform” indeed. Unless carefully safeguarded it will certainly be followed by dire confusion. A further aspect of this matter is raised by the consideration that if proportional representation is going to give us abler men in the Legislature—and we believe that it will—by what argument is this system of voting going to bo advanced for application to the Upper House alone? If it is desirable for one why not for the other—for the House having by far the greatest responsibilities ? These are cogent questions, and it will also occur to the electors that if the well-tried, scientific system of proportional representation is made the basis of election to the House of Representatives some very strong arguments will be necessary to justify taking from the same constituencies another set of members to act as watchdogs over the first. In their desire to slay tho system of nomination Ministers will, therefore, have to be very careful indeed that they do not saddle the country with something even more objectionable.