LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 10137, 25 August 1904, Page 3

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

NOMINATIVE v. ELECTIVE CHAMBER,

(From our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Some time Avas spent m Committee m the House last evening m considering Sir Wm. Steward's Bill for the reform of the Legislath-e Council. The light took place oA'er clause 2, Avhich proposed to limit tlie number of members m the future to forty, and to abolish the nominatiA*e system. Mr Taylor, Avkh a A 7 ieAV to having a single chamber for the future, moved to limit the clause to tHie bare statement tliat. no futuire appointments should be made by the Governor. Sir Joseph Ward declared himself a believer m the bicameral system and opposed to the unicameral system. In a young country like Ncav Zealand there should be a dual chamber. He recognised the necessity for reform, but not of the sAveeping character suggested by the mtiinber for Ohristcliurch. During the past ten years the Council luid been progressiA'e and had passed nearly rfvery reform demanded by the country J Mi- Fowlds: What about the referendum? Sir Joseph said there might be exceptions, but he Avouild not particularise, because some of the appointments made had not met Avith- the univeiisa'l approbation of members of the House. That Avas not a A r alid reason for so SAveeping a dluange m the constitution. An electiA-e Upper House returned by large electorates Avould mean limiting the field of selection, OAving to the enormous expense of contesting seats. He spoke approvingly of the work done by tho Upper House. Mr T. Mackenzie protested against some of the appointments recently made, of men avlio had not specially distinguished themselves m any public capacity. It Avould always be a reflection oh the Government that they had not called the late Hon. W. Rolleston to the Council. If the nominative system was to be maintained, there should be some qualification for selection. Tlie country would prefer to see the Council ended to hiving the existing condition continued. Mr Massey agreed' with the Minister of Railways, that a second chamber Avas a necessary part of our constitution, but he disagreed entirely with the nominath-e system. The. Legislative Council should, m liis opinion, be electiA-e. With a vieAV to testing the opinion of members on the subject, he moved that after the words "from and after the pas-iug of this Act" tliere be inserted' "the Council shall be elected as provided hereafter." Tlie Hon. HaJl-Jones favored a reAJsory chamber, elected, by the House, consisting of, say, a dozen members', avlio slwuld go through Bills «af ter they liad passed the House. He disagreed Avith his colleague as .to the necessity of a second chamber. Mr Massey : What is the mind of Government then? Mr Hail-Jones : You will get it by degrees. (Laughter.) Mr FowMs humorously suggested tliat the Council should be elected from the property owners holding over 10,000 acres. Tliere Avould be no unnecessary expense m an election under those conditions. Seriously speaking, he was m favor of one chamber. The province of Ontario never had but one House, and excellent re •suits had followed. , Sir Wm. Steward) said tliat to pass measures and then to Avait Avhile they Aye re revised by a Committee of experts Avould mean prolonging the session. Mr Rutherford announced his intention of supporting the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. An Upper* House elected by tlie people pertained m both Victoria and South Australia, and it was to be. preferred to a nominative chamber. The Premier dominated both chambers and both sides of the Lower House. It Avas Avrong to have an autocrat Avith such power. For that reason he Avould prefer an elective Council to a nominatiA'e chamber. Mr Hanaro contended 1 tliat it Avas m accordance with democratic principles tlhat there should be only one chamber. Mr Ell had always favored the abolition of the Upper House. Why, he asked, did not the Government carry out their promise made' in the Speech from the Tin-one to bring m legislation for the reform of tilie Upper House? Hon. Hall-Jones : You will get it presently. Mr Massey : In the sweet by and bye. Mr Ell said that there was evidently a split m the Cabinet on the question. The Premier and the Minister of Works favored the unicameral system, and the Minister of -.Railways the bicameral. Members were left to conjecture the minds of the other members 'of the Ministry. Mr Buddo suggested that the lion, member m charge of the Bill •vhould be satisfied to get the Bill amended to the extent of haA-ing it declared that the nominative system should cea--e, and that henceforth councillors be elected. The Government codld not refuse to bring m a Bill if such a resolution Avere come to by a decisive majority. * Mr W. Fraser faA-qred an elective Upper House, elected, if -possible, direct by tihe people. . He had no hesitation m giving bis A-ote for Mr Massey's amendment. Mr Hogg liad always been an abolitionist. At the same time, he recognised the good Avork tliat liad been done of late years by the Legislative Council, and favored leaving matter's alone. The Hon. Ja«. McGoAvan belieA-ed m the bicameral system. He Avas. opposed to an electiA-e Upper House, Avhich must necessarily be a party chamber. Judged by their* Avork. our present Legislative Council Avould compare fuA-orably with any second chamber m the Avorld. He recognised that it Avac a reasonable proposal tlhat no "call" should be made without the appointee haA-ing discharged some public duty. Mr Flat man opposed both amendments, holding the question was one that should go before the country at next election. Sir W. Russell regarded the proposal that the Upper House should consist of revising barristers as useless, inasmuch as that, chamber should not- merely be a revising body, but should act a* a check on the policy of administration for the time being. After three hours' discussion, Mr Wilford, at 11 p.m., moved to report progress. This \\as lost- by 46 to 17. A division folloAved immediately on Mr Massev's amendment, which Avas negatived by 34 to 27. The folloAving is the division list: — Ayes: Alison, J. Allen, J. Bollard. Buchanan, Davey, Duthie, W. Fraser, Guinness, Hardy, H arding, HaAvkins, Herdsman, Herries. . Kirkbride, Lang, Lewis, Mander. Massey, T. Mackenzie, Reid. Rhodes, Russell, Rutherford. Symes, J. Thomson, J. A. Thomson, and Vile. Noes: E. G. Allen. Bedford. Buddo, Carroll, Duncan, Ell, Field, Fisher. Flatman, Fowlds, A. L. D. Fraser, Graham, Hall, Hall-Jones, Hanan, Hogg, Houghton, Jennings, Kidd. Laurenson, Lawry, McGowan, McNab, Mills. Farata, Remington Sidev, Steward, Taylor, Ward, Wilford, Willis, Witty, and Wood. Mr Massey raised tne point that the Committee having decided that the Council should not be electiA-e, the Bill could not proceed, but tho Chairman ruled against him. saying that tliere Avas .subsequent machinery m the Bill for an elect ion to fill vacancies. Mr Taylor's amendment against any further nominations being made Avas then pub. He ' urged that those member,*-. AVho liad failed to get the elective principles affirmed ought to vote Avith hin>. Air Fraser: No, thank you. We are not to be trapped. Only tilidrteen members voted against the abolition of the Upper House, wlule 49 voted against Mr Taylor's amendment. The Hon. Hall-Jones voted with the minority. Avhile the rest of the Ministry Avent ' into the other lobby. Mr Hanan next moved m tho direction of declaring tliat the Upper House should consist of a revisory chamber, consisting of a dozen members. The Hon. Hall-Jones supported the amendment, Avhich Sir Joseph Ward opposed, saying he regretted liaving to differ from his esteemed colleague. If the amendment Avere carried, the Committee were declaring that there should be one chamber only. \ Shortly before midnight the Committee seemed to be getting m a tangle, and Mr [ Davey moved to report progress. This [ was carried by 36 to 28, and the Bill . was killed.