Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1913. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXV, Issue 11784, 22 September 1913, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1913. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

The necessity for reforming the Legislative Council by changing the mode of its composition being taken for granted, discussion of the question how improvement can best be secured does not appear to be advancing very rapidly towards a solution. The Government favours election by proportional representation, and a Bill to give effect to that system is before the Council. On the other hand, a Select Committee of the Council has brought down a majority report advocating the system of co-opta-tion, that is, election by both Houses sitting together as an electoral college. But this proposal has not secured the support of the -Government, and, judg ing by the debate which has been proceeding for some days in the Council, is not likely to secure a majority in thai Chamber. If the motion to go into Committee on the Government's Bill is defeated in the Council, we suppose, that some action will be taken by the Prime Ministervin the House. It has even been suggested that a sufficient number of nominations will be made to the Council "ad hoe." We think, however, that the Government will require to proceed very cautiously on this question.

It is already becoming very appar ent that it is easier to say '' reform the Council" than it is to find a satisfactory method of doing so. On the other hand, nothing could be more futile or more vicious than to discuss the various proposals which are gaining currency from a party standpoint. Party considerations should have nothing whatever to do with an important constitutional problem of this sort, yet we find one journal condemning co-optation because, under existing circumstances, which are of a purely temporary and evanescent nature, it would result in a Council containing a majority against the present Government. What has that got to do with the matter? If the object is to create a Council containing a party majority there is no necessity to touch the present Council. If the object is to create a strong Reform majority in the> Council that can be secured by the nominative method. Co-optat-ion is not to be recommended, but not

for the reason just mentioned. The real.objection to a co-opting chamber is that it would be liable to be unduly swayed, by the intrigues of cliques and the exclusiveness of party spirit, and still more liable to odium through . a general belief that it was so swayed. In considering various proposals for the reform of the Council, the purpose for which it is required ought to be kept prominently in view, and we are afraid that this is not being done. As we have pointed out more than once before, the Council is not a Chamber possessing powers co-ordinate with those of the lower House. It is essentially a revising Chamber and a Chamber which ought to have certain powers of delaying legislation. It should, therefore, consist of men whose personal weight entitles their decisions to attention, and respect. We have said bofore, and we repeat that such a Council can be secured by a system of nomination ex officio, which removes the element of patronage from the nominative system, and this method would command attention but for tho fact, obvious enough to those who can read between the lines, that each party secretly desires to secure a solid party major-, ity in the Council.

The demand for the reform of the Council is a party demand which arose out of tho vicious system of party patronage practised by the Seddon and Ward Governments. But we do not believe that there is any very strong feeling on the matter one way or the other in the country. In the Council the other day, the Hon. O. Samuel declared that "it was preposterous to say that because the country had declared for the Massey party, the country had approved of the party's proposals for the reform of the Legislative Council. This had never been ■an election issue." We are inclined to think that there was more than a substratum of truth in these remarks. We are satisfied that none of the proposals at present under consideration will provido a satisfactory substitute for the existing Council. There has been no sorious constitutional conflict between the two Houses to make the question of Council reform an urgent one, and it seems to us that nothing should be done in a hurry. Above all, the Government should beware of resorting to the violent method of making "ad hoc" appointments to the Council simply in order to force the passage of a measure which the present Council does not support, and which quite conceivably may not have the approval of the country. The Government cannot claim to have any very strong or pressing mandate on this question.