Alternative To Legislative Council Wanted By Opposition Before Voting Its Abolition

Wanganui Chronicle, 20 July 1950, Page 5

Alternative To Legislative Council Wanted By Opposition Before Voting Its Abolition

PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, Last Night (P.A.)—The House of Representatives began tonight Ihe second reading debate on the Legislative Council Abolition Bill, which was initiated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Holland . Speakers in the debate tonight, in addition to Mr. Holland, were the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fraser), and the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Webb). The debate was interrupted when the House rose.

Mr Parry (Opp., Arch Hill), Mr McKeen (Opp., Island Bay). Discussing the question of an alternative, Mr Holland said that in 1948 a committee of both Houses was set up. It had examined sysems throughout the world and Legislative Councillors finally suggested a Council be retained at about half the strength of the Lower House, with 30 members elected by the Lower House. That, however, would have meant little difference from the appointment by the Government in power. Mr Holland said he saw no merit in the suggestion of a Council representing sectional interests. • Miss M. B. Howard (Opp., Sydenham): Hear, hear! Mr Holland said he would not like to make the big change proposed without having considered all the alternatives. He had studied the matter deeply, but had reached the inescapable conclusion hat there is no suitable alternative in sigh’t. The search, however, would continue with the appointment of a select committee from both Houses. If one were not found we could “run along with one chamber and see how we get on.’* As ye't no alternative had found which was acceptable to him, but he would welcome any suggestions. Advisory Body Mr Holland said his experience in office to date suggested 'that the Government did not need a superwsory chamber for its legislation, but there was scope for an advisory rather than revisory body—one that would advise Ministers on the problems they had too little ime to consider properly. A Minister worked very long hours for a salary no bigger than was paid in 1875. Mr A G. Osborne (Opp., Onehunga): Fix it up. 11l support you! Mr Holland said consideration might be given to the present Law Revision Committee, which already was very useful in examining legislation. The step the Government now proposed was a big one, but the Council had served no useful function for years past. He hoped the debate would produce an honest exchange of views on an important question. Mr. Fraser said the country would be staggered at the lighthearted way Mr. Holland had discussed a revolutionary change. Quoting his Hansard Mr. Fraser denied that in 1947 he had said he would support the abolition of the Council, were it not for constitutional difficulties. Mr. Fraser said the National Party policy had implied that an alternative safeguard would be provided, but now he said there was no safeguard. Did the Government favour a single Chamber? They now proposed to abolish the Council without finding the alternative. It had nothing to offer the people in exchange for the revolutionary proposal which had been introduced. Mr. Fraser asked what “hasty, unwise or ill-considered legislation did the Prime Minister and the Government contemplate would be passed by the House? Would it be the Government's own measures, or was it intended to place a bar against the Labour Party ever again being able to pass legislation which the National Party did not like? The AttorneyGene’ra] had been tinkering around with a written Constitution. The Attorney-General (Mr. Webb): I wasn't serious. Mr. Fraser said that if the Government had an alternative to the sirftle Chamber system of Government it ' should be produced in a statesmanlike way, and that an alternative should be included in the National Party policy. ' “Were these gentlemen who have been appointed to the Upper House pledged to abolish it?” asked Mr. Fraser of the Prime Minister. | Mr. Holland made no reply and the j Leader of the Opposition remarked: “Silence gives consent!” ' The statesmanship of the Govern- ! ment had failed because it could not ; suggest an alternative. The House I should know about the alternative and I discuss it before the Bill passed the second reading stage. An Amendment “There has never been anything so ; puny, so weak, so anaemic as this . bringing down of a measure to abolish I the upper House and not saying wheI ther anything will be put in its place,” said Mr. Fraser, in maving an amendment that consideration of the Bill be deferred until alternative proposals referred to in the manifesto of the National Party during the 1949 election campaign and by the Government had been considered by the I House. “It is only fair for us to know what ' is in the mind of the Government,” ; I he said. , | The Prime Minister had set out on , i a destructive course. “Even the Sovi--1 i ets have a second House,” he said. J Mr. E. P. Aderman (Govt., New ' Plymouth): It is a prison house. I Mr. Fraser: The Government is | more revolutionary than the Soviet ■ Government in this respect. .I On the question of compensation, ' Mr. Fraser said that although Parliament was paramount, surely there . i was a law of decency and of fair play. ’, If new members of the legislative Council had pledged that they would I abolish that Chamber, then so far as I they were concerned there was no question of compensation for them, but there was a case for the other members whose terms would not ex- .! pire by January 1, 1951. i Those appointments should not be thrown aside lightly, he said. A had ; principle would be established if those other appointments were not recog- . nised. ! Mr. Fraser said he felt his responsi- | hility for some of the appointments I very much. He would say that the I Bill itself was hastily considered, and I showed a devastating lack of states- ' manship. The debate was interrupted by the I adjournment at 10.30 p.m. Until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Fraser raised two arguments in favour of deferring the Bill—that an alternative to the r Council should be found before it a is abolished; that compensation u be provided for those members 0 whose term of appointment to the ‘ Council does not end before the t proposed date of abolition, Janu- e ary 1, 1951.' t f Mr. Holland, moving the second ( reading of the Bill, recalled that it s was the third time he had moved such c a motion, the two previous occasions i being when he was in Opposition. He believed that last year this Bill would 1 have been approved by a majority of the House had it not been denied the t opportunity of a vote. This time he t was fortified by a knowledge that 1 abolition of the Council was in the 1 National Party’s election platform, < which the people had approved by < majority vote. s The Bill raised an important con- 1 stitutional question of whether the , country should, have a bi-cameral or i uni-cameral legislature, and of < whether, if the Bill was carried, an acceptable alternative second cham- j her could be found. 1 Mr P. Kearins (Opp., Waimarino): i This Bill is different to the previous ones. Mr. Holland: It is this Bill we are discussing now. This is not the Bill the honourable gentleman ran away from. Fortunately, we can manage ' without his assistance this time, al- 1 though I think he would be very ' happy to vote with us on this mea- 1 sure. No Aspersions Mr. Holland said he cast no asper- : sions on the members of the Council, : who were just as anxious to serve their country as were members of the House. The abolition of the Council had at one time or another been in the policy of both parties. Originally, it was intended, when the Council • was established, that its members should hold life office, and that the chamber should be purely a revisory one. The chamber did, in fact, initiate some excellent legislation but when after some years the Council began to block legislation of elected Governments and tended to become autocratic, the term of appointment was reduced to seven years. As party politics developed and the power of the Lower House grew, so did the power of the Upper House fall away. Mr. Holland said it was at that stage that a system developed of making appointments to the Council as a reward for party services, and those whp did not support the Government of the day were not reappointed after seven years. When the . present Government was elected the Council had 33 members, of whom about 27 had proclaimed their opposition to the policy of the new Government Were it not for the steps recently taken the Government would have faced a Council which could have blocked the wishes of the people, as expressed in a secret ballot, That was a negation of democracy An Opposition voice: Hear, hear! Mr. Holland said that if the Legislative Council could thwart the will of the people, democracy must break down ■ Reduced To A Farce The Council as now constituted had been reduced to a farce. It no longer initiated or effectively revised legislation, and performed no useful function. There was no justification for its retention. Mr. Holland said there had been many previous attempts to revise the Council, including the 1914 Act providing for its election by prooortional representation. Mr Holland said from 1865 to 1914 there were at least 33 attempts to , amend 'the constitution of the Legislative Council. Many people still I favoured a second chamber as a safe-1 guard, but there had been no effective I Legislative Council for some 15 years. • Today it was only an ineffective farce. | “I say that with great respect,” said Mr Holland. Until 1936 there had been 370 Bills initiated by the Council, but since then very few Bills originated there. From 1939 to 1946 not a single Bill I was introduced in the Chamber, and since 1933 no Bill from the House of■ Representatives had been rejected or i seriously amended in the Legislative Council. Compensation? When the present Bill was introduced last week Mr Fraser raised a storm of protest over the issue of • compensation for members, but what compensation did Labour provide for (he persons it displaced from various | directorates by legislation in its early > years of office? Mr Holland 1 what position would Mr Kearins take j up on the Bill? I Mr Kearins: I have never shifted | my ground. Mr Holland: I have never known | the honourable member "to be on the! same piece of ground for two days. • Mr Holland quoted Mr Kearins' from Hansard as having said in 1947 that he favoured the single chamber legislature, and his only concern was ' for the quickest way to achieve that. The quickest way was now 'to vote for the present Bill. Mr Holland said Mr Fraser, in 1947, had also said that if constitutional , issue? were out of the way he would support the Bill then before the ( House. Those constitutional diflicul-| ties had now been removed. Mr Hol- ! land said 'that, since 1936 there had . been only two conferences between ■ both Houses, and those were both on local Bills. The Legislative Council i had taken only three divisions in '(he last four years. Mr Holland quoted Mr Fraser ■ as having, in 1924, moved a re- i duction of £5 in the vote for the ! Legislative Council as an indica- | lion that it should be abolished. Among his supporters then were