LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

Otago Witness, Issue 3098, 30 July 1913, Page 13

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

BILL BEFORE THE UPPER HOUSE

WELLINGTON, July 22,

In the Legislative Council this afternoon the Hon. Mr Bell moved the second reading of the Legislative Council Bill. Ho explained the respects in which this Bill differed from that of last session. He asked members to bear in mind that under the first constitution proposed for New Zealand there was a provision for an elective Council, and at subsequent dates it had been proposed that the constitution of the Council should be changed to one chosen by election. At the last general election both parties wore unanimous on the subject, and both had striven to put the reform of the Council before the people, with the result that there was a general consensus of opinion throughout the country that a chango was desired and necessary. That position was not disputed in the debate qf last year. The Council considering this Bill was (with one or two exceptions) the same ns had passed the Bill of last year by 21 votes to 8. Subsequently the Council suspended that Bill because it claimed a year's grace for consideration, and it was because it had not finally rejected it that it was again being introduced in the Council and not in the House of Representatives. It had been said that the Government was not sincere in bringing the Bill into the Council. That course had been followed on his advice because the Council had by its resolution, passed on the motion of Mr Ormond last year, promised to take the Bill again into consideration, and under those circumstances that was the right place to introduce it. Pie asserted that he and a'l his col’eagues were decidedly in earnest in presenting this Bill as a part of their policy. He reviewed the authorities on proportional representation submitted by him last session, but be had certain new information. The House had since affirmed by large majorities that the Council should be reformed during this Parliament. He also quoted the Irish Act, the latest effort of legislative genius in Great Britain, to show that large constituencies and proportional representation wore being adopted for the election of the Senate in the now Irish Parliament. The Irish Act had given the Lower House the power of the puree, and that rule had been followed here, but in a contest between the two Houses on Bills other than Money Bills a joint sitting of both Chambers should determine the fate of the disputed measure. The Government had never contended that two electorates, as provided for in the previous Bill, were essential, and he had distinctly said, when moving the second reading, that he was prepared to accept amendments on .the point. He wou'd, however, suggest when in committee that the Taumarunui electorate should be put into the southern half of the North Island, and Napier into the northern half. He defended the allocation of an odd number of representatives in each electorate, and said that preferential voting was necessary where the transferable vote was used. The Government had no sympathy with the opinion expressed by the lion. Mr Samuel that they were not bound to proceed with the reform of the Council, and they would sooner resign than fail to keep their pledge to the country. He defended the elimination of the country quota of 28 per cent, over the cities, because it was impossib'e to have proportional representation and retain it. The respects in which this Bill differed from the previous Bill were only such as he was prepared to meet in committee, and therefore ho claimed that there was no vital departure in principle He asked the Council to deal with the Bill, and let the Government know what the Council wanted. Ho declared that the Government was in earnest, and if it. held office the Bill was going to become law. It was not trifling with the question, and if the Bill did not pass this year lion, members knew that it would pass next year. Knowing that the Government was prepared to meet (horn in every reasonable way in committee, he asked them to for mu late and express their views, but, above all things, let them come, to a decision on the Bill. The debate was adjourned on the motion of the Hon. Mr Sinclair, and the Council rose at 4.55 p.m. July 24. The debate on the second reading of the Legislative Council Bill was continued in the Legislative Council by tlie Hon. J. R. Sinclair this afternoon. Ho complimented the Hon. Mr Bell upon the lucid explanation of the 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 lie was encouraged to take that view by the conciliatory speech of the Minister. Subject to limitations as to members lie approved of tiie principle of an elective Council, because he believed the time had conic, when the people should have a voice in the selection of the Legislative Goa.icJ. 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 stood, because it declared for a whdly 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 lie 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 up a judicial attitude, because men were elected to do certain things and they had to do them. A chamber such as he. proposed could not become a rival to the popular House. There need bo no fear that the nominative por-

tion of his proposal would be abused, for public criticism would be a healthy check upon those responsible. If a further check was required it could be provided by making the nominated members eligible for one 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 its 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, suggested the election of the Council on the same 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 for the election of the Council it must be adopted for the election for the House of Representatives. He had serious doubts about proportional representation, and he wanted more light on the subject. Theoretically it seemed all right, but there were practical difficulties which could not be ignored. In the colonies where it was in existence it had its friends, but ho knew that it had many enemies. Organisation would play an enormous part in an election 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. Ho 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 'tor the second reading of the Bill. The 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. The debate was adjourned on the motion of the Hon. Mr Carncross, and the Council rose at 4.30 p.m. July 25. The second-reading debate on the Legislative Council Bill was resumed to-day by the Hon. Mr Carncross. He said the subject was one that no reasonable man could approach light-heartedly. Their clear duty was to endeavour to arrive at a conclusion which was in the best interests of the dominion. He believed the Government was sincere in presenting its Bill, but it was sincerity in an unworthy cause. The Hon. Mr George deprecated haste in dealing with the most important measure that the Council had ever hud to deliberate upon. The delay of one year bad enabled the Minister to so improve his Bill that if another year was given him he would he able to still further improve it. The debate was adjourned on • the motion of Mr Earnshaw.