House to Debate Bill for Abolition of Second Chamber

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26532, 6 August 1947, Page 6

House to Debate Bill for Abolition of Second Chamber

Parliaments] WELLINGTON, Aug. 5. Designed to abolish the Legislative Council, a Bill sponsored by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, was introduced and read a first time in the House of Representatives to-day. Opportunity for a second reading debate on the measure, which is known as the Legislative Council Abolition Bill, will be afforded the House to-morrow Arguments in support of Mr Holland’s proposal were advanced by three Opposition speakers on the motion asking for leave to introduce the Bill, but when the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, volunteered an assurance that it could be debated to-morrow the Opposition did not discuss the motion further. The Opposition claimed that the Legislative Council had outlived its usefulness, and that, whatever its past importance might have been, it no longer reflected public opinion. The debate on the motion lasted just under an hour, Government members refraining from taking part in it. The Bill contains four clauses. The operative clause states that the Legislative Council of New Zealand shall be abolished and that the seat of every member of the Council shall, on and after the commencement of the legislation, be vacant. All offices constituted or created in connection with the Legislative Council shall also be abolished, and all appropriations in respect thereof shall be repealed. Any reference in any Act, ordinance, rule, regulation, instrument, or writing whatsoever to the General Assembly, the Legislature, Parliament, or to both Houses of Parliament, or any reference deemed to include reference to the Legislative Council shall be construed to refer only to his Excellency the Governor-General, with the advice and consent of the House of Representatives, or only to the House of Representatives as the context may require. Another clause provides for the repeal of division 1 of the Legislature Act, 1908, and all amendments to any of the sections comprised in such division, the Legislative Council Act, 1914, the Legislative Council Amendment Act, 1918, and the Legislative Council Amendment Act, 1920. It is stated that the Bill shall come into force on a date to be appointed by proclamation, but such date shall not be within one year from the date of the passing of the Bill. Greatest Importance Mr Holland said that any constitutional change involving the Legislative Council -was of the greatest importance to New Zealand. Any decision concerning the future of the council should not be taken lightly. He wished to make it clear that, in moving his motion, there was no attempt to make an attack, implied or otherwise, on the members of the council who were part of the constitution. Legislative councillors, he said, once enjoyed life membership, but that was reduced to seven years. All were appointed on the nomination of the Government. Provision was made 33 years ago for an elective Legislative Council, and all that was required to make that effective was an Order-in-Council which no Government had yet deemed advisable. It might have been said once that the council served a useful purpose as a revising body, but that could not be maintained to-day. Often Bills which occupied the House for many sitting days, went through the Legislative Council at a single sitting. Once, some worthwhile measures were initiated in the Legislative Council, and referred to the House of Representatives for its concurrence, and it had been a useful place to correct errors made in the haste of the House. However, as constituted in the last 15 years,'the council had not performed any useful function and it could be said with equal truth that it was no real influence on, or reflection of, public opinion. It could therefore be

said that it had failed in its purpose, and having no constituents, its members had no need to take notice of public opinion. It had no influence whatever on the passage of legislation. Mr Holland said the method of appointment had long been in acknowledgment of services rendered to the party in power, a practice which was thoroughly unsound and indefensible. He had suggested the appointment of only two persons to the Legislative Council One was Mr G. W. Forbes, a former Prime Minister. Mr Forbes was a parliamentarian of over 30 years’ experience. Other Systems Perhaps a case could be made out for a second chamber, but first of all, they should abolish the Legislative Council and proceed without one and ascertain through experience if any need was then lacking. If it was found that such need existed, then other systems of second chambers could be explored. There were several systems in Australia which would provide material for study. Mr Holland said the council could not be corrected in its present form. It could not be mended, so it should be ended because its basis of constitution—largely of, persons who had served the Government of the day politically and industrially—was entirely wrong. It was the National Farty policy to abolish the council and it was once that of the Labour Party. The Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, had said that it was part of his party’s policy but that he could not say if this had been altered. Mr Holland appealed for a “fair run” for the Bill, the introduction of which was the exercise of the constitutional rights of the Opposition. It would introduce more legislation, but Standing Orders prevented this being done where the legislation proposed would involve the Government in expenditure. Mr T. C. Webb (Oppn., Rodney) said the measure was not an attack on individuals but the institution. The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser: We come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. Mr Webb said that the council had

ry Reporter outlived its usefulness. He felt that the big majority of Government members would favour the Bill. It was the very thing the Government had been looking for for years and the Opposition had helped it out of a delicate position. Mr M. J. Savage had said in the House that “I would even go so far as to put the Legislative Council off altogether because it seems to me a duplication of this chamber." Council Unnecessary A member of the present House had also said in the House in 1925 that he was “quite certain the council was an unnecessary part of the legislative machinery. It might be true that towards the end of the session when Bills made their appearance at the rate of seven or eight a day they did not receive that close and critical attention that was desirable, and therefore no doubt the Upper House at such a time occasionally did some useful revising work. That limited amount of work, however, was not of such a nature that the Revisory Committee of the House of Representatives could not do it just as well. After all, the expenditure on the Legislative Council was quite unnecessary because it was well understood that if the Government or the Leader of the Legislative Council wanted a Bill to go'through, that was the end of the matter. The measure was passed and no power on earth could stop it. This was recorded in Hansard, said Mr Webb, and if memory served him right, the speaker was now a member of the Government—in fact, a very prominent member, Mr Fraser. Mr Fraser: There you have it—a ready-made speech. Mr K. J. Holyoake (Oppn.. Pahiatua): Still using the same phrasing but not supporting the same ideology. Mr Webb said that the House virtually governed without the Council, and there was no reason to perpetuate it. The 1914 Legislative Council Act gave power to set up an elective Council on a proportional representation basis, and only an Order-in-Couricil was needed to make this effective. Now was the opportunity to get rid of an excrescence in the political system. Mr Fraser: What proposals have you to get the Bill through the Legislative Council? Mr Webb: We will take our fences as we come to them. He continued that no legislation had been initiated by the Council for years. A Government member: What about the Alsatian Dog Bill? Labour Party Policy Mr F, W. Doidge (Oppn.7 Taurangal said that there were on the Government benches men who had always been protagonists of the abolition of the Legislative Council. Mr Fraser: Let us see the Bill. We are anxious to see it, so we can take the second reading. Mr Doidge said that when the Bill went to the Upper House there would be. in the main, men sitting in judgment on it who were officials of the Labour Party when the abolition of the Council was written into that party’s policy. Mr Fraser: Who will fake it there? “ When, in our lifetime, has the Upper House functioned as a responsible revising Chamber or has anyone taken the slightest notice of it? ” asked Mr Doidge. “Throughout our history, our people have been critical of the second Chamber and sceptical of its work. The National Party made the abolition of the Legislative Council a plank of its policy .at the general election, and the success achieved at the polls justifies it in bringing down this Bill.”

Mr Doidge said that over the years the Legislative Council had been stuffed for party purposes. It was time that was stopped. The Prime Minister had asked how would the Bill go through the Upper House. The answer to that was to do the same as John Ballance and Massey did. The Prime Minister was committed to the abolition of the Upper House, and he could put in sufficient members to see that the Bill went through. Another means would be to cut off the supply. If a revising Chamber were necessary, they could set up a Senate of 10 really competent representatives such as exjudges, legal experts .and ex-Prime Ministers. The Government was committed to the abolition of the Upper House. Abolition was a plank of the National Party’s policy, and the Government was honour-bound to put this issue to the test. After Mr Doidge had resumed his seat, Mr Fraser quoted the Standing Order relating to private members’ public Bills, and said that they would be given an opportunity for a full discussion to-morrow. The best thing to do was to get the Bill on the Order Paper. He wanted to facilitate and help. Mr Holland: What about Ministerial replies to questions that are taken on Wednesday? Mr Fraser said the Bill could be taken after that and at night, or both if necessary. The Bill was then read a first time. Mr Speaker: Will the honourable gentleman indicate when he wants to take the second reading? Mr Holland: Yes. To-morrow (Laughter.) The House then proceeded to other business.