THE UPPER HOUSE

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XLIX, Issue 9590, 19 August 1949, Page 2

THE UPPER HOUSE

QUESTION OF USEFULNESS DISCUSSION ON BILL ■VIEWS OF MR F. W. DOIDGE, M.P.' * The contention that to all intents and purposes the Legislative Council served no other purpose than that of a rubber stamp, and that in its present form it was absolutely useless was advanced by Mr F. W. Doidge (National, Tauranga), speaking on the Legislative Council Abolition Bill, when it was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland) in the House Representatives. The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) had stated that ihe chances of getting the Bill through the House were remote, but Mr Doidge asked why should he (the Prime Minister) anticipate any 'difficulty in view of the attitude that” he himself and those who sat with him on the Government benches had taken over a long period of years. It had been their constant pledge to the country that when in power they would abolish the Upper House. Mr Fraser: Never once.

Mr Doidge: “Over and over again, and I will prove it to the Prime Minister; I shall quote his own words to confound him.” The Prime Minister had emphasised the question of time, said Mr Doidge. Clearly the idea was that when the measure came to a second reading debate the Bill would be talked out. “The Leader of the Opposition asked for a second reading debate and a division,” said Mr Doidge. “We want to see both sides having a chance to go into the division lobbies.” Another reason put forward by the Prime Minister was that if the Bill ever got through the House and went to the Council those concerned by the provisions of llie Bill would refuse to cut their own throats.

The Prime Minister said that the opposition on the side of the House to a second Chamber lay in the fact that in that Chamber there was a Labour majority. “That is what the Prime Minister himself has objected to all - through the years, as have those who sit with him—that whatever Government is in power possesses in that place a majority, and that it is, to all intents and purposes serving no other purpose than that of a rubber stamp,” said Mr Doidge. “Let me quote from Hansard what the Prime Minister said on the subject,” continued Mr Doidge. ‘After all,’ said the Right Honourable gentleman, who was not then, of course, Prime Minister, ‘the expenditure on the Legislative Council is quite unnecessary, because it is well understood that if the Government or the Leader of the Legislative Counici wants a Bill to go through, that is the end of the matlei; the measure is passed, and no power on earth can stop it.’ And finally: ‘The expenditure on the Upper House serves no useful purpose, and that is quite sufficient reason why it should be cut out and the money devoted to some useful purpose.’

“This was a plank in our platform at the last General Election, when our vote increased by 60,000,” said Mr Doidge, who added that when the Bill was first introduced in 1947 the plea was put forward by the Prime Minister that there were constitutional difficulties in the way, the Statute of Westminser being the main difficulty. That legislation laier went through. Now that the c.'nstitutional difficulties had gone, the opportunity presented itself of finding out how those new and younger members on the Government benches would vote. Abolition of the Upper House became a plank in the Labour Party platform in 1912, and every member on the Government benches to-day was pledged to the decision taken then and reaffirmed over and over again since. “The point I want to make at this moment is that the other place (the Legislative Council) as we know it* to-day is used purely and simply as a haven for those who have been Government candidates and members but who have been defeated at a General Election,” concluded Mr Doidge.