LEGISLATURE BILL.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16988, 10 November 1920, Page 9

LEGISLATURE BILL.

CIVIL SERVANTS AS CANDIDATES FOR PARLIAMENT.

DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN HOUSE AND COUNCIL. 9 snxiAi. to "tiij; m;-:-s.") WELLINGTON. November 9. When the Legislature A"t Amendment Bill, which originated iri the Legislative Council, was considered by tho House on Monday, the House made three important amendments in the measure. Clause 3of tho Bill amended tho definition cf "contractor'' in the principal Act, so that the selling or leasing of hirtd to the Government, whe ther eornpul-orily or voluntarily, should not disqualify a person from sitting as u member of the Legislature. The HoU3O struck this clause, out. and also added to the Bill two new clauses, Nos. 4 and 5. The first of these provided that public servants might be granted leave of absence in order to become candidates at Parliamentary elections; the sccond gave to the Commissioners a margin of 12-"(> in place of 5-50 to work upon when adjusting electoral boundaries. Tho House to-dav inviced tho Council to concur in the amendments. Sir Francis Bell moved that tho Council disagree with the striking out of clause 3. Clauses 4 and 5, he said, dealt iyitli matters affecting tho House, and not tho Council, and ho therefore pfoposed that, in accordance with the rule of courtesy f;onerally observed between the two Chambers, tho Council should concur in the insertion of tho new clauses.

Tho Hon. O. Samuel said as regards! clauso 4: I think it is most objectionable in principle, and I think it is extremely deplorable that at this period of the session, an alteration which may bo fraught with such disastrous consequences should be made. Here is a direct incentive to all thoso in the_ Government service to take into consideration whether they won't hotter their lot bv offering themselves as candidates 1 for Parliament. We have a'lo to consider tho consequences that follow candidature and defeat, and whether a hitherto blameless and useful civil servant may not bo hopelessly spoiled by what ho passes through in a contested election. This would extend to all members of tho public service. It would extend from those high in the Law and Justice Department, including Magistrates, down to the humblest employee, and it means that any man who chooses to flatter himself that he is likely to get elected as a member of Parliament, will he able to obtain leave of absence to run and endeavour to get elected, and will have to resort to all those methods which are familiar to all of U3 who have stood and have contested elections. Then he will have the right to go back to his place in the public service, imbued with all these feelings, which must result from such an ordeal as wo who have passed through it know a contested election to be. I am prepared to give my vote against that amendment. I trust that the Council will assert itself and not for a moment be deterred from doing so by the fact that, technically speaking, this does not. immediately relate to this Council.

The Hon. W. Earnshaw said ho considered that tho proposed innovation would be disastrous to tho members of the public service. If a man in the public service desired to stand for Parliament ho had every right to d.o so, but he should give up his employment in order to contest tho scat. Tho mischief lay in tho fact that a man would stand on the certainty that if he was defeated he could go 'back to his job. _ The Hon. J. Barr said" he thought it desirable that the public servants of the Dominion should have direct representation in Parliament. In certain parts of the Dominion, the;y had representation out of proportion to tneir rights, because they constituted the minority that swung the balance one way or the other. Because of the power of the minority made up of public servants, some members of Parliament stood pledged to all sorts of things that were demanded of them by this minority. It would be preferable to have such members standing openly in the interests of the public service, or of a section of tho public service. The Hon. J. B. Gow said he could not vote for the clause. He thought tho question was one that should be brought up early in another session, when there would bo a proper opportunity for the fullest discussion. Sir William Hall-Jones and the Hon. T. Mao Gibbon opposed the clause for reasons similar to those advanced by previous speakers. The Council disagreed with the striking out of clauso 3. The motion to concur in the insertion of clause 4 was defeated on the voices.

Tho Hon: W. Earnshaw divided the Council \inon' the motion to concur in the insertion of clause 5, but the motion was carried by 18 votes to 2. Mr Earnshaw finding in Sir "William HallJones his only supporter.

In the ordinary courso managers from both Houses will confer regarding the points in dispute. The conference cannot take place until tomorrow.