LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15540, 23 August 1912, Page 6

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

Tilt; lill,l, I'T'RTH lilt I) I'l! ATE IJ

iKIiOU Of It UttX L'ORi:EBrOSiT.ST.)

WELLINGTON, August 22.

The debate on the second leauing 01 me Legislative Council ISicctions liili w« w suiuod to-dav by the lion. .tir who socuiidul tuo uiuliuii lor the ii'io-il nviding, In doing so he said i' l ' w:,s tnoreiy in support ot the I'kvlive principle as, applied to the Council. | 'J ul ° \vw i-ortxiui changes which he would like to see niiule in tile liiil, and if they wvie nut iivwle in committee lie could not b' ive his support to the bill. He had been a suppurk? of the nomination ot members of the Council lor lite, ami if a proper selection had been made of the moil suitable fur nomination a imfct excellent Chamber could have bee-n constituted, but in 1891 the life nomination had been superseded by » nK«t objectionable business—the seven yoars' iitiiniiiation. If i <uiuc.il was to be elective the Illation arose as to the franchise on which it was to be elected. He that the simple majority vote was not always afair method, and he dismissed the liasis of the tranehia' i|tialiii< aticns for the S-.voud Chamber in other Kritish Dominions. 1 <i .'iiistralia the sccond Cham IHI uas ei* .'led on the )>opular vote, but. vci v hti'icl provisions were made to deal with a possible deadlock. It was possible to dissolve the whole Senate. The majority system had already proved so unsatisfactory here thai the second ballot had been' trial as » remedy. This hud proved a failure, as all lion, members knew, for the election of members of the other Chamber. He thought the alteruativu voting system was the best, and of all the, methods in vogue lie thought the Gregory system, used now in Tasmania, would be the bost lor the election of the Council. The bill presented was primarily a Proportional Representation Hill, but the principle was departed from as regards Maori members, who were to be nominated by the Government, and there was no reason why the Government should not nominate live or six. His next objection to the bill was that insullicient provision was made for a possible deadlock. Another departure from proportional representation was the provision that 20 members should be elected from the North island and 20 front the Synth Island, In the other House the proportion was 45 for the North Island and 35 for the South Island, including Native. On this b.'usit; the allocation of 40 members of the Council would be 22} fur the North Island and 17j for the South Island. He did not agree to the two electorates, because ill such big electorates there could be no community of interest among electors and candidates. Wellington and Auckland cities could be relied upon to nominate at least 10 a-piece. The Hon. H. D. Hell: Nonsense. The Hon. Mr George maintained that this possibility could be relied upon, and tliat fully 40 candidates would be nomiltated idtogetlier to represent the North Island. The result would lie that all seclions, opinions, or sects in tlio community might be represented. When a critical division came it would not be a matter of whipping up members of particular parties, but of arranging with warring or heterogeneous factions. Jt would be Government by cliques. Should the measure pass the second reading it would be advisable to refer it to a select committee of tlic Council, who would knock it into shape, for he thought the machinery clauses in it wore unworkable. The Hon. 0. Samuel congratulated the Leader of the Council on his speech. That lion, gentleman bad said he occupied a. position of isolation, but if that were so it was because he must vote for measures irrespective of his i.pinions.—(" Hear, hear." and laughter.) He innst vote as his Cabinet decided, whatever his opinions. He (Mr Samuel) entirely disagreed with the views of the Leader of the House when ho «aid that the bill was to effect a change from the system for the choice of members of the Council from nomination to election, and that all else in the bill was mero method. He (Mr Samuel) said that, the Government had no right to attempt to legislate piecemeal. This was an amendment of the legislature Act, and why should not a bill lie brought down to deal with Ikilli I lotuses ? Instead of trying an experiment on the Council, would it not be better to consider the advisability of aliolishing this Chamber altogether? Did not the reasons for the existence of the Second Chamber Teat upon conditions which would not stand if it wore an elective Chamber? The question ought to bo submitted whether the Second Chamber should be abolished altogether, and whether the primary Chamber should not be trusted to do its work without the supervision which it was the Council's privilege to bestow upon it. Ho quoted extensively from Hansard to show that the lion. Sir Frederick Whitaker had advocated tlic necessity for a Second Chamber chosen by an electoral college of both Houses of Parliament. If a change was necessary in the Legislature, as was suggested, lie argued that the Coiuicil should be elected either by tlic House of lleprescntnlives or bv both Hoases, or that it should lie abolished altogether rather than that it should bo elected on tho popular practice as tho primary Chajnlwr was. Wliv did tho Council exist at all? The second Chamber existed to prevent party legislation. to modorato tho speed of'legislation, to revise, amend, and iniprovn rash legislation, or to retard it nutU the constituencies were capablc of beiiifj ni)i<le to understand what was being done. If tho (.'omir.il were elected in em hers would have to receive deputations, receive hundreds of letters, would have to give pledges, not according to their beliefs but according to what election necessities required, and would, in fact, be subject to all the disabilities of the Ixnver House and would bo useless for the purposes of a revisory Chamlier. The Government-, lie declared, had no mandate from the people to icform the Upper House on the lines suggested. This suggestion could lie got rid of: that the people demanded it. The Hon. J. T. I'.iul: No, we haven't got rid of it. The Hon. G. Jones: The question is who are the people! The Hon. 0. Samuol said he hoped the Council would approach tho subject of the bill with the ono motive of serving' the licsl interests of the jieople of the Dominion. It was unwoi+liy to suggest that the pro|K»sal would be considered as committing suicide. He was in the main still in favour of the maintenance of the present system of selecting members of the Council. Anything that tended to weaken the inducements to honesty on the |«irt of ilios? who had the Government "t the country in thoir hands was bad. It v.-as not even wisa to take away the functions from the men in charge of tbe Government, Itccaiwo they had not u-tvi those functions we.ll. He said that the appointment of commissions to control the civil scn-ice and the railwavs was only to set up a buffer between tiie House and the Government, and the buffer was necessary because the preceding Government had got into trounle liecause of its failure to pleiise in its exercise of contixil over the railways and the civil service. Election on a popular vote must lead to the growth in tile Council of the abusts of party. What happened in the Lower Chamber? Was not much time wasted in rorrimiiiation in the service of party or cabal without regard to the good of the country? If the Council neoded reform what must be said of the House of Representativeslf the members ot the primary Chamtwr devoted to thear work one-hundredth part of the rare, attention, and impartiality that members of the Council bestowed ti|n>u it they would hav<- the right to iriticise the second Chamber. The Hon. .1. ft. Cattan: There would lie no novd for a I .legislative Council then. The Hon. 0. Samuel said that the propped change would make the Council subject to all those indiiemes which rendered members of tJie House of Representatives incajtable of doing t-lieir work. In any case he declared that the system of proportional roprceentation was bad. It would mean that, without regard 'o honest v. good character, or intelligence a camiidrtte's election would depend upon his ability to got his »rae on a ticket. . A fraction only of the electors have any real knowiodgs of their f ste,

and the only *ifczmvrd which election on tlio popular* fr.mcnise provided would l>c i amoved. Ho would be willing to support tho second reading of tbc bill if it were shown to liiin th;ii some ctiwige was I nocessarv in regard to tlio apinintirent ~i members of the Council, ! if this riiaiyo would l-o bad in the i. Crests of tho (KHiplu he would have no iw-J-oii l-at to vote against '' ,u secon d reading. lie held tli.-tt- Uio elective principle would so vtiliicti the usetulnoss of the Council that Micro would be no j'utiiicniiou for il« coutimiin" p:trl of Parliament. If the Council were to be clectim it oould rightly ohjoct to tlio Hinit-i'.ion of its powers a-s tho bill proposed. It would have a right lo havo a lair number of the Ministers in t.ho Council and a right to turn out the Government. This would b<> especially so as every incinber (if the Council would be able to'say that ho represented 40 times (is many people as any roomliw of the primary Chamber, lie would oppose tho second" reading occauso b<i believed that thu bill, ii citrricd- into law, would be disastrous to t-tio l>est interests of the jieople as a whok-(" Hear, hear.) When tho Coiweil resumed at 8 p.m. the lion. ,1. Bigg Giere was no doubt that tho spcecli oi the Hon. Mr Samuel was a very eloquent one. Whether or not it would stand criticism would bo seen in the discussion which followed. If the Council had one function more than another it was Use function of rejecting hasty legislation. The proposal was experimental, and if tried at all should be tried tirst on the other House.—(" Hear, hear.") Tho bill had been brought down by a Government of whom it could not bo certain that it |>osscsscd the confidence of the people of the country, and, that being tho case, it was the Council s duty, following constitutional practice, to vote against the second reading of the bill. On that ground ;Jone he proposed to defend the principle of nomination for a limited term. History repeated itself, and could it be imagined that the present Government would nominate for the Council men who would reject their measures I Strange as it was, that was the view of the non-party man. That was tho view of the Hon. Mr Samuel. "To me," he continued, "it is like the lly in the amber. To me it is a puzzle how he got there " The Hon. Mr Samuel: It is a great compliment to him to get there — (Laughter.) The Hon. Mr Rigg: It may bo o compliment to the lion, gentleman, but to mc it is a puzzle. In order to make the nominative system effective they must have a periodical change of parties. They could achicvo by the noniinativo system exactly what he thought the Government was seeking to do by election. Had there been that change of parties in New Zealand which might have taken place in the past 20 years, they would have had the element of criticism which was necessary to its usefulness, and the Council's labours would have been much more, effective than they had been. Had that change taken place the proposed change would never have been heard of; therefore lie said that there was no nepd to change tlio present constitution of the Council. He admitted that the Council might be improved in some respects. What was the reason for the existence of a second Chamber? Originally the Chamber had been set un to protect the interests of wealth, privilege, and vested interest as a class body to represent tlio class it represented. Access to that body had been practically impossible to tho mass of the jieople. In the course of time the nature of the second Chambers had becomo modified until their functions were pretty well defined. They had tho power to reject and to pass legislation, but their principal • f imctioife were to check hasty legislation and to act as an advisory Ixxiy. Would an elective Chamber bring forth the persons best suited to do the work? Willi two Chambers elected on the one system there must be a means to get over the difficulty of, deadlocks, which difficulty the bill did not provide for. With an elective second Chamber men of the right type might not ho got into the Council. Men who won elections were often s-uperiicial in knowledge. and their chief asset was their personal ppularity. Here were capable ami suitable men, who by their very nature were unable or unwilling to fight elections. The method ought to bo selection. not election. If there was to be a change let it be the abolition of the second Chamlter. If the Chamber was to exist by selection, those who could be entrusted with the whole Government of the country should be the selectors. He contended that Mie Council had lieen reformed in 1891. whon the seven years' term had been introduced. A Government had only to remain iii office for seven years to appoint the whole of the members of the Council, exclusive of life members, and the appointments fell in iu such a- way that the Government bad only to remain in office thrre or four years in order to have a majoity. This, too, went lo show that the present system was a fiiie one. The lion, gentleman commended the lucidity of the Hon. 11. D. Hell's explanation of the measure, and also the moderation exercised by the TTmi, Mr Bell in his speech. The Hon, Mr Bigg said that the Hon. Mr Hell was the one member who wv.ild have criticised the Councii wit,limit incriminating himself. It was left for tlie members to do the criticising themselves, and they ought to do it, for nothing should be hidden. He thought tint tlie Council had been too one-sided for mrwiy years. lie thought the Council had made a mistake when it had practically abolished committers. There had been more bad legislation placed on the Statute Hooks in tlio last two or three years than in the whole of the previous term which lie had served in the Council. How had that cry for an alteration in the constitution of the Council first arisen? It had emanated first, lie believed, from the Libour bodies, who wantsd tlie Council abolished, but ho did not think that the Labour bodies ever asked for an elective Council. It ua* left to a Prime Minister who had done morn than anyone else to nap tho independence of tho Council to make the suggestion of reforming the Council, 'illis was found to be a good ©lection cry. He had heard the members of tho Council referred to as old fossils. All fossils were old. which showed that the people who spoke those words knew nothing about tlio Council and just as littlo about its work. If tlw Council rejected the bill and the. Government made a number of appoint* mente the cry for reform would die. Ho desired lo give them an opjwrtunity of taking that couise. He moved that the bill should be read a second timo this day six month*. The Hon. G. Jones said that the quality of the speeches of the memliers of the Council during this debate was a conclusive proof that up change in the Council should be made which might have the effect of changing its quality, lie said that the bill had liecn " thrown down like a. bone to a dog." Later in his speech Mr Jones observed that he did not object to the new party calling itself Liberal, but it wnu at least ungenerous of the party to heap obloquy upon those whose policy they had stolen. The Hon. Mr liell : Is this part of the policy The Hon. Mr Jones: ''The part of the policy you will find in the Budget." He proceeded to say that it was an ; nsult to apply the terms of sycophant and crawlers of successive Liberal Governments to members. The Hon. Mr Bell: I didn't say so. The Hon. .Mr Jones : No: but you are a nthc-r good specimen of your class. The hon. gentleman should not be the Minister for the Interior, which sounds like something in a "shop. —(f.nn^htor.) He should have l>een Attorney-general. At 9.15 p.m. the Council adjourned till 2.15 p.m. to-morrow.