Abolition Of Upper House Discussed

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 16, Issue 28, 4 December 1950, Page 5

Abolition Of Upper House Discussed

At no stage in her history was New Zealand passionately in love with her Upper House, the Minister of Education, Mr R. M. Algie, told the conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

First it had been regarded as a poor imitation of the House of Lords, later an entrenched citadel of growing wealth and influence, later the home of political patronage and lastly the resting place of the politically inefficient and politically inept. New Zealand was embarking on a unicameral system in which the popular chamber was subject to no checks save that of public opinion registered every three years. Thd country faced the prospect with confidence.

Mr Algie’s statement on unicameralism found approval with the; Hon. L. W. Galvin (Victoria) who said he hoped Mr Algie would visit Victoria and deliver the same speech. The senate there, which represented only half the voters represented by the popular chamber, had on one occasion blocked a money bill.

Shri Shah, India, said he believed that some Indian provinces which had adopted bicameralism might abolish their upper house. It had been said that upper houses were places where the wicked no longer troubled and the weary went to rest.

The Hon. W. H. Courtenay argued that a second chamber was a necessity for a federal state—such as was proposed by the British.