LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 24 September 1913, Page 5

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL.

THE DEBATE CONTINUED. (By TtUgrajfh.—Preu Aiwciation.) WELLINGTON, Last Night. The debate on the Legislative Council BUI was resumed in the Council this afternoon by the Hon. J. D. Ormond, who said the practice of Libera! Governments in appointing party men had brought the nominative system into disrepute. He thought, holwever, that the" majority of the Council still favoured that system. As an alternative, the Bill submitted by the Committee was the best substituted, and one which would grow in public favour the more it was understood. He disagreed with the Government Bill in every particular, the worst featbure of it being the certainty with which it would destroy the influence of the country settler in favour of the organisations of the cities. All the circumstances considered, he recommended the Government to defer the question until after the next election.

The Hon. G. Jones declared that no one wanted the Government Bill. Nothing had been said in the debate to convince him that the people wanted anything different to the Council as aft present constituted, The Committee's scheme was Mt a remedy, but merely a scheme to avoid thing worse in the shape of the eminent Bill. He took exception to the stuffing of the Council with voting machines. When members were appointed merely, to parry out the will af the Government, it was about time to abolish the Council.

The Hon. J. Barr favoured direct election by the people, but not on the method of the Government Bill. He suggested six electorates? for the South Island, and seven for the North Island, each returning three members foil" six years on the present franchise, and not by proportional representation, s which was not adapted to New Zealand conditions.

•.:- The Hon. J. Paul said he had in no wise modified his previous view, that Council should be elected by adirect vote of the pedple, on proportional representation. He was totally opposed to the electoral college proposed by the Committee, as being undemocratic. That recommendation was absurd, and simply meant that a strong Premier would get his supporters elected without the people's mandate. The Council coujd not continue to exist. Failing the Government Bill, he wished to see the election brought about under the Norwegian system.

The Hon. H. D. Bell, in reply, said the Government Bill held the field ■both as to principle and method of election. That had been demonstrated by the action of tne Council and Committee, both of which unanimously resolved that ths system of nomination must be changed to that of election. The" issue now before the Council was whether the election be direct or by a college of both Houses. In the latter, case, there could be nio doiubt that' if members displeased members of the other House, they would not be elected. Therefore they would lose their independence. r If the election be hy party, (the result would be worse. They were therefore forced back to election by the pedplef which was the principle of the Government Bill. He defended proportional repres v its critics.' The report of the British Commission on the system showed that while it destroyed party institutions, it was admirably adapted to the election of a second Chamber. If the Council was not going to pass any Bill then the sooner they got a Bill from the other House the better, because he hoped they would not suppose the Government was not sincere. Personally, he would not hold a seat in the Council if that were the position. The motion that the Council go into Committee on the Bill was then puit and carried o!n the voices.

The short title of the Bill was passed, and progress was reported.