AN ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2210, 9 July 1896, Page 24

AN ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE.

A CLOSE DIVISION. Wellington, July 1.

On the HOCB2 resuming at 7 30 this evening,

The Hon. W. J. STEWARD moved the second reading of the B'eative Executive Bill, 4;o provide for the electioa of the Executive Council. He said the bill proposed to enact one of the most important reforms that had ever been submitted to the Legislature, and he claimed for it calm consideration, nob only on his own behalf or of the constituency which he represented, bub 00 behalf of the majority of bhe people of New Z-wlaud, whose views and aspirations he btlicvtd it represented. Ho pointed out thab he had introduced the bill for the last two sessions. On the firab occasion the bill was defeated by six votes, and on the second by eight, and on each occasion it was only defeited by Ministers and their whips. To show how the bill watt regarded in the country, lie stated that every Liberal organisation bub one had declared in its favour ; and he believed every one of the ladiev political associations were also favourable to it. In addition to that he had received sheaves of correspondence asking him to bring the measure forward ag&in, on the eve of the general election, to give the colony a ehanco of expressing its opinion on ib. After referring to the present mode of forming Ministries, which he considered very unsatisfactory, he said he hud heard a Minister on those benches who had held office for years say that the first duty of the . Government was to preserve its own existence. Did that show a proper spirit' of patriotism ? He thought nob, and said the evils of the present system of appointing Government? were many in number. A^ter reading several extracts in favour «f his proposal, he said the remedy for the present state of things was provided in his bill, and it gave the deliberate choice of the Executive to Parliament, which ho considered would be a great improvement on the present system. He pointed out thab ho did not propese anything tbab had nob been tried before, aa the system he proposed worked well ia North America, and had been in force for 50 years ia Switzerland with the utiuojb success. He explained tho details of the bill, and said it was a Liberal measure which was supported by all Liberal organisations in the colony. If the bill did not pass no*, the day was oomiug when it would pas*, as the country wa? strongly in .favour of the reform he proposed. - -

Tho Hon. Mr.SBDDON o rnipliraented Mr Steward on the bill and (he speejh he had made in support of it, but he bad wearied the Howe by the quotations he had made from the speeches of antiquated men, ' whom ho (Mr Seddon) declined to accept as authorities, on the question, and which were merely a rehash of the apeeeheß he had heard 20 years ago. He (Mr Seddon) read lengthy extracts from a speech made by Sir R. Stoufc in favour of party government, and said that, although Mr Steward had. introduced this bill, there was no stronger party man in the House than the membsr for Waitaki. Whab, therefore, was the vie of Mr Steward quoting Dr Hodgkinson, when they had such a speech as thab he had quoted from, and he preferred in this nutter bo take Sir R. Stout for his guide rather than Dr Hodgkinson P He asserted thab the elective system had proved a failure in Switzerland, and if ib were passed into law here half a dozen would band together to obtain office. Mr Steward seemed to imagine th&t only six members would be nominated for seats in the Ministry, bub he (Mr Seddon) thought 60 would be nominated for the position, and there would then be 54 disappointed members —(Mr G. W. Rtjsskll : "We are all thab now.") The honourable gentleman could speak for himself. The Prime Minister under this bill would have no power whatever, and there would be no end of difference on oardinal points, of policy. No Ministry in facb could exist which was elected under a bill of this kind, and no Ministry would receive the reapect of the HouH9 under ib. He held that no reason existed at all for the proposed change. Toe present Government were kaoping p»ce with the times and were progressing as quickly as public opinion required. Hs (Mr Seddon) had been accused of being autocratic*, bub thab was all in the interests of the party. The proposed bill would take away the right of the people, because ib deprived them of the power of electing bbeir own Government.

Mr SAUNDER3 said ib was evidenb the Premier felb when he rose he had a very bad case in band. Mr Seddon had referred to the unsatisfactory speech made by Mr Steward, bub he (Mr Saunder*) thought the speech was very much b.-tber than the bill, which was a poor thing and did nob go far enough. He hoped they would be able shortly to pa?s a much better one. The Premier had bold the Houne the elective system bad failed in Switzerland, but he altogether denied that and said that, on the contrary, the moment the elective system was pat in force the country went ahead. He spoke strongly in favour of the system and quoted from wellknown authorities to the effect that the Swiss form of government was most perfecb and very economical. Ib cost the people there only -jd a head ; whilst the government in this colony cosb Is per head.. The Premier had just told them about all the Liberal measures passed by his Government, but he (M,r Saundera) contended that the real Liberal measures were pa9sed by Sir John Hall.— (The Hon. Mr Seddon : •' Only four.") But those four were better than all those passed by Mr Seddon since. The Premier had, in fact, stopped where Sir J. Hall had left off.— (Mr Seddox: "Who gave you women frauchige ?") Nob bhe Seddon Government, oertaiuly, buc Sir J. Hall and himself (Mr Saunders). He felt convinced thab if this bill did nob pass now it would pass sooner or laber. Ha referred to the Legislative Council as being ab present most unsatisfactory, and said it would continue to,be so as long a* it was nominated by the Government of the day. If it were elected by locfcl bodies as in Switzerland, being a committee only of 44- members agiinsb 145 in the Lower House, it would be' moro effective. He supported the bill; and hoped it would pass its second reading. Ib would require some modification in Committee ao as to bring ibJiearer to the system in fore a in Switzerland, where the people were thoroughly oontaated and happy under the clectire system of government. A country mutt be teall governed where

three millions cf paople lived contented on a million and. a-half acres oE arable laud, as was the ciso in Swi'zerl&nd.

Mt EARNSHAW felt sure thab as Mr O'Regan had moved the Miuistry in favour of tho referendum they would *l?o move them in favour of the Elective Executive Bill. The Premier had spoken in his usual autocratic manner on the bill, but if ib passed they would see a great change in bhe Treasury benohes. Those of them who objected to the pre<enfc costly system of government were convinced th&t if they pub the Elective Executive Bill on the Statute Book they would be studying the wishes of the people of the colony. He asked me mbeiM of the Liberal pirly what part they hud in shaping the laws of the colony. They might meet iv caucus, bub the moment they left the caucus the Premier was master of the situation, and it always was the same under their present system. The whole thing was a jumble and a sham, and no member could tell what part he had taken in passing the laws brought before them. Under the eleotive system they would have parby government, bub ib would be a very different sorb from the prosenb autocratic system of government. They had now no democratic governraeub, bub rabher an autocracy, and the occupants of the Treasury benches cared more for rffi-'e than for the good of the colony. He pointed oub bhab every member of the Liberal parby was eleobed three years ago bo suppoit a non-borrowing policy, bub who could say th&t plarlgd had been kept ? Why, they l»d plunged deeper and deeper into debb. And yeb the Liberal party thought they were in touoh with the country after they had falsified every election pledge they had made. Mr W. HUTCHISON wai nob in favour of the elective Executive proposed by Mr Steward, bub he was in favour of an elective Executive for all that. He held that the .Government should be a committee of the House, appointed by the Home to carry oub its behests. He agreed with the Premier bhab ib wa* inadvisable for Mr Steward to weary the House with exbraebs from Dr Hodgktuson's pamphleb. He had no doubt Dr Hodqkinsou was an »mi*ble member of the House in formsr yea-s, bat he was nob aware tba 1 ; thit gentleman was an authority on the elective system. He felb it was nob no muoh the House of Representatives that guided the policy of ths country at present as the Governmenb, and the Premier of the colony was playing into the hands of those who supportad the elective system. AU Gjvernmenbi for soms time past usurped functions that did not bel'-ng to them, bub especially the present G->vernm>-nb. He did nob so much blame the Government as tbeir. weak-kaeed supporbers, who refused to think for themselves ; and he held thab no Government had a right to sib on the benches unless mt\x the consent of a majority of the House. Mr O'RHGAN was glad the bill had bean brought down on the eve of a general election. Ht? bhoughb whab had branspired during therect6s affjrd9d abundant reason for making ihe proposed chauge, and members who had no party purposes to 83rve were becoming disgusted with the preaent system. He s*id that Mr HallJoa'ei before he became a Mininter was sbrongly in favour of this bill, and he hoped he would show by his vote now thai he still supported it. He • regretted to eav tho H»u. Mr Siddon's speech did not beav the hall-mark of sincerity, but the Premier changed his views so frequently thab ib was nob surprising. Only two years aso the Premier had described the Referendum Bill as a most dangarous measure, and yeb ib was now one of the policy bills of the Government He was ab bhe same time pleaded to see the Hon. Mr Seddon and his colleagues capable of improvement. Ib was nob illiberal to have Minisbers elected by Parliament;. Whab he objected bo was a Bysteca which oompfilled- mem to vobe against their convictions. He believed a large majority of the people of this colony were in favour of the bill, aad that the minority at present in the Housa on the bill would be converted into a majority afcer the next election.

Mr G W. RUSSELL would not huve spoken that night weiM ib nob for bhe lengthy quotation of Sir R. Stout's speech given by tha Premier. He (Mr Rmirll) would quote from a speech made by Mr Seddon 15 years ago, in which he had praised th 9 Hall Government for treating th« We*t Coast fairly, and said thab in future he (Mr Seddon) would follow no man blindly, bub would vobe in the interests of his district and the co'ony. Thab was the opinion of Mr Seddon before he became a Minister, and if he^ had carried oub' bhab promise he would* have been a much stronger man now than be was. He differed from the Premier on certain points, and should do so still. No action of Mr Seidon such as instructing the whips not to invite him to a caucus or bhe depriving hiai of any position whicttt ho had held on committees (an action which ho regarded as puerile aad childish) would do him (Mr 'Russell) any h.irm. As for the Elective Executive Bill, he thought the country was asking for ib, and tha feeling in it 3 favour was steadily growing. H<j admitted that under party government reforms had bsen made, and the .-Stela" on Govemmeab wers responsible for sorae reforms ; bub ha asserted that" with the exesptiou of the advaucas to settlers' system, ever/ other- Liberal proposal had either been initiated or brought in during the timo Mr Billance wan head of bhe Government. Tho only thing witih which Mr Seddou's natne was identified was the co-operative system, which he believed was originated by the present Prenver, and he was entitled to vsh%te7er credit waa due for' that syfitam. Toe labour legislation wa» identified with Mr Reives'a name, and Mr Seddon was raally not identifier! with anything except that which he had referred to. Hs denied Mr Seddou's assertion thab this bill would destroy parties, and he believed bhab within the nexb three or four years there would be a great change in parties. It would be abtolnbely impossible, he contended, bo return a Conservative purby when there was au elective Executive, because the Liberal sentiment was so strong in the colony. Tbab being tha case, he could not understand why the leaders of the Liberal parby should oppose bhe bill.

The Hon. Mr HALL- JONES said the House would recognise he had hitherto supported this bill, and he should do so on the present occasion. He agreed, however, that the bill was far from perfecb, and he thoughb Mr S'eward might hive evolved something better. He did nob Kgree with the proposal that members of tho Executive should be submitted to the Governor for his approval, aud although there were certain details of ths bill of which he did nob approve of, something practical might ba evjlv-d out ofit.

Mr IIA.LL opp sq.3 Ihe bill, and con'ended tint LLe lrfihUtiou of riw H i;iw w,\< v n-fi x at tue House itwif. H-j he'd 'h-v 1 . t ; \e inwjhiuery in the bill w*s altogether ioad-q late to bring' aboub what was desired.

Mr BUDDO thoughb they were going to hive a better division oa the bill than before. He considered the bill far more valuable than the referendum.

Mr COLLINS had previously voted against the bill, bub would nob do so on the present occasion. He believed ib was, nob absolutely possible to abolish party* government, but he

had oome to the conclusion that it was capable of a great deal of improvement. Tho Premier had denied that he was autocratic or overbearing, but he (Mr Collins) feared there was only too much truth in that charge. He thought they would agree with him that when the Premier exercised his giv-ab power to oust a private member from a position for which he had proved his thorough fibnes3 it was time members exercised independence in 1 matters of this kind. Ib was as a protest agaiosb conduot of this kind that he should nob oppose this bill.

Mr BUTTON had alwaya expressed the opinion that party government was & failure, and his coiutifcuencs had warmly supported him on every occasion when he expressed that opinion. Mr Collins had given a vory good reason for abolishing pirty government — namely, that ib gave one man too much power in the House. They all knew tho Premier was a strong man, but being so strong it was necessary to keep him in check. It seamed to him most inadvisable that the whole Parliament should accspt only what measures were approved by the Premier ; but if the bill was passed it would do away with that state of things.

Sir R. STOUT referred to the quotation the Premier had made from a speech made by him ia 1884, and said hs felb pleased that tha Premier had done so, as ib might improve Mr Saddon'a political education. He hold they could not geb rid of party organisation, and there was nob a word in his speech of 1884- aboub an elective Executive. Ha said the Premier had changed his opinions on many great questions of the day. What was the change that had baken plaoa in hi* attitude over women franchise ? Did the Premier hold the views he formerly held on the Alcjholio Liquors Bill and other measure}, and as to the referendum, aud as tD the Family Homes Bill brought in by himself (Sir R. Stout). Ha said Mr Sedion had. strongly opposed it, and the next session had made ib a Government measure. They were told the Cabinet musb be of one mind. Were they of oae mind now ? — (Mr Morrison : " Th9y say so.") Well, they were of one mind, because there was only one mind amongst them. He referred to the Premier dominating the Hoase and taking private members' day from them. Bat if the bill were passed it would not be a complete reform. There would have bo be two large committees appointed in the Housa, as the Hou«e should nob ba deprived of its liberty. The reason why this bill found so much favour with members was because they ware deprived of their lib?roy in Parliament by the Government. He admitted ib was fair argument to say the bill would destroy p*rty organisation ah au election, but an Executive elected by the Home oould nob destroy agitation on such subjects as temperance and Bible in schools, &j. One advautage gained by this bill was that bhe Executive would be a reflex of the Housa instead of chosen by the Premier. They would also get more freedom in the Huuso, and laws would be dealt wioh on their rasritn, which was not the case ab present Ha repeated that this bill would nob be a complete reform. It was only a step forward. He asked the Housft t> give this reform a trial.

Mr MORRISON had always opposed this rneasure^and would do so no* on purely party grounds. He was a party maa, aud beUerod this bill would be injurious to party orgauisvation. Was it likely they could get a purer adniUiiitratiou under this elective system thia they bad at pr.seat, especially when the Executive would be elected by men who would probably not know each other ?

Mr M'NAB supported the bill, and said he felt sure aa elective Executive was coming. He thought the debate on the whole had done good

Mr ALLEN said the real cure f .>r the evils of party government was not in an elective Executive, but in purifying the whole system of party government. If tbat were not done the Fame evil would result from an elective Executive.

Mr PIRANI was not voting for the bill on any personal motives, and he had advocated it; hix years ago. • He regretted the Minister for Public Works now adopted a different attitude to that assumed by him before he was a Minister, when he was glad to work hand and glove with those whom he now taunted for having minds of their own. The* motion for the second reading resulted in a tie — Ayes 23, Noes 23. The following is the division list : —

Ayes (23). — Messrs Buddo, Buick, Button, Crowther. Eannhaw, Oeen, Guinness, Hfke, Joyce, J W Kelly, Lin;c, Massey, M'Guire. Meredith, M 'Nab, O'jft*gaa ? " Pirani, G. VV. Russell, Saunders, G J. Smith, Steward. Stout, Tanner. Nqks (13).— Messrs Allen, CUdin.ti>, Oarnell, O*nicrjßß, Duncau, IThtnun, K\\\, Hnvris. Ho?g, Houston, Lawry, Lewis, M'Uowan, li. M'Kepzie, M Lichlan, Millar, Milta, Montgomery, Morrison, Pinkerton, Sedtlon, Stevens, and Willis,

Ths Speaker said it appeared to him the House did uot know what to do with the bill, and he should give his vote with the Ayes, to give ib an opportunity of getting into Committee.

The bill was ordered to bs committed that day month. The House rose at 1.35 a.m. -