The Tuapeka Times AND Goldfields Reporter & Advertiser "Measures, Not Men." WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1912. REFORM OF THE DEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 5969, 14 August 1912, Page 2

The Tuapeka Times AND Goldfields Reporter & Advertiser "Measures, Not Men." WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1912. REFORM OF THE DEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Ibo Financial Statement of tko Hon. James Allen lias linally settled one <iacstiou, namely, ulio question which deals with the existence of tho New Zealand brand of Toryism. That political gospel which hud for its chief aim the creation of a colonial squirearchy may now bo said to Ihj iv u .. dead. The party ot politicians who wero a *rmcd by their opponents to bu representative Tories and apostle* of a reactionary policy haie proved themselves, by tho pruurainino of legislation sketched in the Financial Statement, to be at least moderately incliiiul towards Liberalism. The crucial test may be said to hav« been tho proposals in regard to land taxation, and in regard to, the franchise ior an elective Legislative Council. The itcform Ministry has passed lajlK tests with credit. It favours an increase in the graduated land-tax with a view of promoting close seulnni... and it scouts a nv class restriction of franchise in tho matter of elections to tho Upper House. These are truly Liberal doctrines, and their adoption by the present (jovornmant must bo rathor disconcerting to the present Opposition. Mr Massey and his colleagues may be reasonablv caruplimeuted on their strategy, Thvy have made a flank attack on the on. m,and impounded tho latter's aminuni; tion in a most masterly way. Indeed we can point to laws passed a t the instance of the Ward Government which aro intrinsically more reactionary and less democratic than anv proposals to be found in Mr Allen's Budget. We refer to the forfeit 0 f the franchise by a military recusant under the Defence' Act, and the withdrawal from tho soldiers of our misnamed citizen army of the privilege of electing their own company offwers. The foinier provision is undoubtedly reactionary, imposing, as it does, a tost of opinion, a nd tho latter is undoubtedly undemocratic, placing, as it does, our youth under tins control of a military caste. The dominant Itoform Party could not better or mere genuinely show their nal tor tnw

traditional Liberalism than by repealing these tyrannical laws. I'lobabiy, however, a new generation will have to grow up beiore the couimy will be awakened to the true .significance of the present Defence Act. But our subject is the reform ot the Legislative Council bv substituting elected sextennial senators. Just here we should like tc make a suggestion to the .Ministry, which, if adopted, might help to popularise the new i pper House. Why not change its name to the Senate, a name sugg.-stive ot august republican dignity. To, Urine; us into line with the Commonwealth of Australia Sir Joseph Ward got New Zealand elevated to the stnti.s „ a Dominion- The Connrnomvealth's Upper House is an elective Senate. If our Doatinion must also have an elective Upper House let it jbe a Senate also, so as to get aw, as possible from associations connected with the Peerage which can no longer dominate the Motlur <>i Parliaments. The occasion for the change is opportune, and by making the proposal the Reform l Ministry would steal another march over their opponents who accuse it of lacking liberal principles and sympathies. We commend our suggestion to the Government, especially to the Minister of Finance. With regard to the utility ot the proposed reform it has always seemed to us that the arguments brought against the system ot a nominated Upper House are double-barrelled, inasmuch as they may, with perfect propriety, be used to advocate the total abolition of the bicameral Legislature. The Hon. James Allen says th ;v t the principal objection to the basis established by the CoHstitution Act was that members holding life appointments were not sufficiently impressed with the importance oi political changes desired by the constituencies and advocated he nx'm'.ers elected to the Lower Heuse. That is as to say that the life tenure of seats in the Legislative Council was changed to a sewn years' tenure because the Council was p-norm-ing its functions tf-o efficiently. Upholders of the bicameral Legislature always plead that a brake m, n.isiv legislation is reeded. Life members supplied this check only too well. Therefore they were put on probation for seven years, so that, incase of misbehaviour, the dominant polhict 1 party could shift them to make room for its own partisans. Mr Allan says that after a f '2l

years this method Btands condemned By -whom ? By tire party of which Mi Allen is a shining light. He also affirms that the alternative whi<-h thr country now demands is tho direct election of the second chamber by th' vote of the people. Now, we don't think the country has ever shown it self to be very particular about th composition of the Legislative Council, but we do think that, bet ore a'' important constitutional chan«v lik'.> the alteration of the basis of ths legislative Council is placed befoi • Parliament, the people should be directly consulted on the matter. Especially in the present condition of parties, wßen a radical change in tlr Constitution might be affected by a catch vote of one or fcwo members, k a referenddm on the sdbject desirable. We should have preferred a Bill t-> legalise taking *a vote of the electoron the question. All that was wanted was a ballot-paper with the word--"Elective"' an d "Nominated," and the Reform Party would ha\« Had p trustworthy; lead .from ib» which if favourable, would have ha! great weight and influence when thproposed innovation came before th Upper House for approval. Even if fjbe measure now introduced by the Massey Ministry is passed bv the House of fifermsentativee, can we ex !>••* it to Mb recswed Tnth favour by

the 32 members who were appointed by the Liberals '( The instinct of selfpreaervation which actuates every existing institution will be forfeited by the legitimate deduction that a party which elected only 38 members out of 80 in the Lower House is not justified iu forcing on the country such a radical change in the constitution. How will the legislative Council treat the Bill if it gets as - far as its chamber ? The Councillors will shake their wise heads and demur, " What are we here for ?" they will .say. "To check hasty legislation. Here is hastylegislation with a vengeance. A system which has succeeded in Catherine together so many sagacious and disinterested legislators as we are must not bo lightly thrown aside. Moreover, parties in that other place and in the country are almost equally divided. The Constitution has given us the casting vote. It would be qu to unprecedented and unconstitutional if we did not exercise that casting vote in the time-honoured way. We reject the Bill." Thus, if everything goes as well as possible with the Massey Governrcent in the Lower House, it lias the prosr ict before it of a conflict with the Legislative Council. In that case Mr Massev and his colleagues will either have to throwaside for the tima being the nrm'/ipal plank in their Reform platform, or appeal to the country, unless they are prepared to go back on their ow„ publicly professed principles, and stuff the Legislative Council with Partisans pledged to their programme. Consideration of the details of the Bill for the amendment of the Constitution we Mist defer to, another opportunity.