LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15825, 25 July 1913, Page 6

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

THE REFORM BILL. SECOND-READING DEBATE. (Per United Peess Association.) WELLINGTON, July 24. 'Die debate on the second reading of the Legislative Council Bill was continued in the Legislative Council by the Hon. J>. R. Sinclair this afternoon. He complimented the Hon. Mr Bell upon the lucid explanation of tlie principles of the Bill, and said the Council entered on the discussion with the advantage of that explanation before them. He hoped to approach the discussion in the spirit of taking> counsel together, and he was encouraged to take that view by the conciliatory speech of the Minister. Subject to limitations as to members he approved of the principle of an elective Council, because he believed the time had oome when the people should have a voi'.o 1 in the selection of the Legislative Coined. He did not find fault with the nominative system, because, if properly carried out, it was a good system. He proposed to propound a system under which the nominative principle would be continued in the Chamber. He did not agree with the Bill as it because it declared for a wholy elective Chamber. That would simply .be duplicating the other House. He thought power should be given to the people to select one-half of the Legislative Council. The democracy of New Zealand was now ready for that power, but to give the democracy all the power which the Bill proposed would have the effect of destroying the judicial character of the Council as surely as if they passed a direct resolution to destroy it. He was a firm believer in the second chamber, and the only question they had to consider was how they could liberalise its constitution and yet retain its proper functions? To this end he advocated a half-elective and half-nominative chamber. He saw no fatal incongruity in such an -arrangement, for incongruities existed now. An elective chamber could not, perform the most important of the functions of the second chamber in New Zealand—the revision of legislation and the checking of hasty legislation. An elective chamber could never take np a judicial attitude, because men were elected to do certain tilings and they had to do them. A chamber such as he proposed oould not 'become a rival to the popular House. There need be no fear, that the nominative portion of his proposal would be abused, for public criticism would be a healthy check upon those responsible. If a further check was required it oould be provided by making the nominated members eligible for cne term. : They would then have nothing to fear, or hope for, and would preserve their'independence. He did not think that check was necessary, but it was imperative that the Chamber be preserved in such a way that it<3 power to check hasty legislation must be unimpaired. Neither Sir G. Grey, Sir F. Whitaker, or Sir J. G. Ward had, in their proposals to reform the Council, sug-

gested the election of the Council on the

sam© constituencies as elected the House, and widely different systems were made the basis of election for the Upper House in all recently-framed constitutions. If

proportional representation were adopted tor the election of the Council it must bo adopted for the election for (the House of Representatives. He had serious doubts about proportional representation, and lie .wanted more light on the subject. Theoretically it seemed all right, but there were practical difficulties which could not be

ignored. In the colonics where it was in existence it had its friends, but' he knew that it had many enemies. Organisation would play an enormous nart in an elec-

tion under the system. The " ticket" would score every time, and it was an open question whether that was a good thing. Under these circumstances time should be given to all parties to organise before an election was held. Speaking of the size of the proposed constituencies, he asked how would a poor man stand against a rich man? Under such circumstances he

foresaw that the motor car was going to be a factor in future elections, and it was a question whether they should not put a check upon the car. He advocated a strict limit upon expenditure in elections for the Council, and he thought they could solve the elective principle and yet preserve the House in such a condition that it would be able to perform the functions which it ought to perform as a part of our constitution. He seconded, pro forma, the motion for the second reading of the Bill. llie Hon. George Jones said no more condemnatory speech could have been made_ concerning the Bill than that of Mr Sinclair, because had this Bill been in operation the probabilities were that he (Mr Sinclair) would, because of his retiring disposition, never have spoken in that Chamber. Anyone voting for the Bill would sign tho death warrant of the Council, and would confess that its construction was unsatisfactory. The Bill was vastly different from the measure of last year, and therefore justified the rejection of the previous Bill. No party at the last election advocated this

[ measure, and he maintained that if the mode of proportional representation was ■applied to the Council and not to the House, then the power of tlie purse must be given to the Council as being elected on the superior franchise. The Council had suspended the Bill last session because more information was wanted about it. What had been done in the meantime to educate the public? What had the Prime Minister done? What had the Government and tlie papers done? Nothing, he maintained, He proceeded to comment on the action of the House in passing a series of resolutions last year under a state of "mental storm," but he was called to order by the Speaker. Proceeding, he claimed that the Government did not know what it wanted. It was not sincere with last year' 6 Bill, and it would no doubt be glad of further opportunity to amend this Bill, for there was plenty of time to pass it before the next general election. The Council had been abused for rejecting that Bill, but what could be said of a Government that rejected its own Bill? The Minister said the Government was anxious to meet the Council, but he met it with a stick, for at the end of his speech he had made a veiled threat that if the Bill did not pass it would be met next year by quite a different Council. The good work which the Council had done in the past entitled it to better treatment than it was receiving at the hands of the Government. It would be disastrous to make it a rephea of the other House and the arena of party contention. The debate was adjourned on the motion of the Hon. Mr Carncross, and the Council rose at 4.30 p.m.