The Sun THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1914. MISGUIDED ZEAL FOR REFORM.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 143, 23 July 1914, Page 6

The Sun THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1914. MISGUIDED ZEAL FOR REFORM.

The passage of the Legislative Council Reform Bill is*ah evidently foregone conclusion, although some of the argu- • ments used by Mr Bell in proposing the second reading were sufficient in themselves to condemn the measure. Mr Bell talks like, a man who ha» obtained his economics and political science from a book, and is stonily indifferent to the real world in-which he lives and moves. It devolved on him as leader of the Upper House to father the Bill, aad lawyer like, he has posted himself up for the occasion in some conventional ideas regarding second chambers, and speaks as from a brief. He is emphatic on the necessity of a "strong" Second Chamber. Strong against what? Evidently against the House which is elected on a popular franchise, and is directly representative of the | political mind of the country. Mr Bell | conjures up a stupid fear that "some day | a House of Representatives filled with Red Feds and anarchists may seek to inflict disaster on the community by passing confiscatory legislation, hence I the '' strong'' Second Chamber is necessary to protect the people from* the men that they have deliberately, and of their own choice, sent to Parliament to make their laws! The Minister must, indeed have been hard up for arguments to convince his brother Councillors as to the necessity of the measure. The prospects of the Red Feds., or even of a moderate Labour Party ever getting into power in this country are decidedly remote, but even if the country iii' its wisdom, or otherwise, gave the Labour Party a majority in the House cf Representatives, it does so, presumably, because the electors want a Labour Ministry. And in that case what right has any Upper House to arrogate to itself the function of thwarting the decision of the electors? The result would simply be a conflict between the two Houses, and if modern history is any guide,this invariably ends in an assertion of the authority of the popular Chamber. If Mr Bell \tere a practical politician he would know i this. The truth is that the Government is making a fool of itself over its mania for reforming the Upper House. In the ; first place it is a serious reflection on the ability, capacity, and representative character o£ the House of Representatives to suggest that it is an untrustworthy collection of politicians which requires to be checked and supervised by another body of men elected on a different basis. ' Nothing is more .calculated to impair the efficiency of the Lower House and depreciate it in the eyes of the community than legislation which implies the necessity of protecting the people against' it. The only way to increase any sense of responsibility for legislation and administration that the the Ministry of the day and the Lower House already possess is to make it perfectly clear that they are wholly responsible for the conduct of public affairs, and that they are liable to be called to account by the electors for their political misdeeds. But Mr Bell's Bill creates an Upper House which will have every right to dispute with the Lower, a question that should never be raised, namely, which of the two really voices the will of the people? Its members will be returned from enlarged electorates, and being chosen on the proportional system, are more likely to represent highly organised parties than the general body of the electors. The certain result will be conflict between two sets of politicians claiming superior wisdom, and nothing is more fatal to the dispatch of business and Parliamentary efficiency. It is a pity the zeal for reform should not have been expended in a more useful direction than in com pleating the Parliamentary machine