THE HOUSE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 874, 21 July 1910, Page 6

THE HOUSE.

NEW BILLS. - 'When tho House resumed yesterday afternoon, the following Bills, among a .number,' were introduced and read a first ' time:— . . ..Horowhenua County Loan Bill (Mr. I Field). . ' , Shearers' and Agricultural Labourers' 'Accommodation Act Amendment Bill (Sir. M'Laren)...; . - . ' ' Tramways Act Amendment Bill (Hon.. B. M'Kenzie).',/ Coal-Min.es Act Amendment Bill (Hon. . & M'lCcnzie). , ORDER OF BUSINESS. ; STATEMENT-BY THE PREMIER., . ■In accordance with his promise to the House on" the previous' day, The PRIME MINISTER mado a statement to the House ;• as to the order of ' business during tho, next few days. He said that ho proposed to ask the House to commence the Financial Debate on Tuesday night. Next day (to-day) he - would bring down tho 'gaming resolutions in tho afternoon. .With reference / to the complaint as to the delay in bringing down Bl he might state that only - twice: had it. been presented to tho House prior to the "Financial Debate. .It was not possible for it. to be made. iip_ until the. end of August.., He would have been glad to havo laid- tho return on the table prior to the debate if it had been possible. A Glance Backwards. ■ . Mr. MASSEY, said, that the,fact that the return had been laid ou the tabta in'the session as . a. rule proved nothing.- About,ten years ago, when, the Premier'was asked to bring down 81, he had replied, "Do yon think that I am doing to supply you with'information to . V' nse'.-ili connection with tho Financial Statement Debate.?".- . . Replying to .a ; question asked by Mr. . , -Massey, Mr: Eraser" (Wakatipu) said that he remembered tho, Premier making such 1 a " statement. . - , ' Sir. Massey said that he also remembered 'an occasion a few years,ago when the House refused to 'pass the first item 'until-'M' was;produced. He hoped that jjio. such step would be necessary .'on 'this ■ Bl -gave-details of revenue and -.expenditure', up to, March 31. If it ivero .not possible'to get the return down by v tho end of July, it did not say much for the officers of the Department". The PRIME MINISTER said that as . a usual thing Bl was not available' prior to the commencement, of . the debate. He , Idid not .remember having made any .'such \ ;i statement .as had been credited to him. •Official Record Not Infallible. Mr.'Massey: Iywill find it for.you, but • sometimes statements' are. omitted from the official record. Sir' Joseph: Sometimes statements are put there which-were never made. (Oh, , Ohs!) .-Resuming, Sir' Joseph said' that ; it would be imagined that the Government • ' was holding it back on purpose. Mr. Allen -(Bruce): -No vory big effort has been, made to: get it. ; ■ r Sir Joseph:' That is an evil, thought; ' there is nothing in it of which we are afraid.. ■ Mr. ERASER (Wakatipu) said: that the statement mide by Mr/ Massey, which ho corroborated, was one in which the ■Prime Minister said.that it would never • do to bring down Bl , before the start of . the..Financial Debate, and so provide members of the. Opposition with ammunition to. telegraph all over the copntry before the debate. So much notice was taken of tho matter on one occasion that , it was.submitted to the Public Accounts • ' • Committee, which came to the conclusion that there was no reason why tho return should not- be placed on the table by the end of July. " The PRIME MINISTER thought that nndf-r the circumstances it would perhaps be the best thing not to bring down the Budget until the middle of. October, by which time the return in question would have been brought down. Opposition members: Oh, Oh! Mr.v Jas. ALLEN (Bruce) said- that he could .corroborate the statement which .... Mr. Massey. had, made as to what the Prime had said on one. occasion." .It was stated- in the evidence -taken by. the'.Public Accounts Committee that.the" delay in preparing the, return took place in the Government Printing Office, and not in the Treasury. Tho return Was being■ deliberately kept-buck,'-'but he did not say by , : whom., 1 ■ Jlr. T.. E. TAYLOR. (Christchurch ■ North) said he.remembered such a state'- , ment' having been made as was alleged, ■out he thought-it, was-'made jocularly by the late Mr; Seddon. Sir' Joseph: Yes, you may be right. HALF-HOLIDAY FOR MINERS. , . When the Half-holiday for Miners Bill y came, before the' House for its second reading,Mr. L.VUREiVSON, on behalf of the Hon. A. R., Guinness, declared that the proposal was eminently fair. - Mr. ELL (Christchurch South), in supporting 'he measure, said-that no .class of worker had greater claims for, a halfholiday than the miners. The. Hon. R. M'KENZIE (Minister, for Mines) said that -he had never yet seen* any request l'or such a' measure. As amatter o,i' fact, the miners had a whole holiday every pay day.. The Bill would ■ have far more reaching effects than some . niembers_ might imagine.-. Men who did repair work in mines would require to work on' the holiday. Mr. POLAND (Ohiuemuri) declared that the remuneration which miners receivfed v/aa not so great as tho dangerous' and unhealthy nature of their employment warranted. In his district the miners practically had a half-holiday at the present time. The Waihi Gold Mining Company, which was one of the richest in .the world, did not pay many of its workers what he considered was a living wage.- . Mr. ANDERSON (Mataura) thought thut the Hill: should not apply to, dredge •' workers... ' Mr. COLVIN (Bulior) expressed his sympathy with the -proposal. It would not apply to slnicers and dredgers. . After the Bill had been read a second tinif it -was .decided,-to refer it to tho Golu'lields and Mines Committe'o: LEGISLATURE AMENDMENT BILL. In moving" the second reading of the ' Legislature Amendment Kill, . - Mr. G. W.- RUSSELL (Avon) said that ho wished to make it clear that he did not intend to discuss reccnt appointments -to, or the personnel of, the Council. Ild believed that a Second Chamber was .-always useful as a brake upon- legislation, and as a revising body. Tho Legit-

lativu Council in this country was quite capable of exercising a valuable power of initiative as regards both legislation and administration. All that lie could hope for from his Bill was to give the House an opportunity to express its opinion on .this important question, to attempt to provide a working scheme for reform Which could be improved and I built upon, and to draw public attention to tho question. A nominated Upper Chamber was undemocratic, and there might just as well b« a nominated Lower House. There might be a change some day in the political complexion of the House, and whether- it was in tho direction of a large Labour party, or of a Conservative policy, the Government that would succeed the present Ministry should not be in tho position of having its measures reject,ed through the political complexion of the Upper Chamber not being a reflection of the Lower House. Under his Bill members of the Legislative Council would be elected by the people on the same franchise as members of the Lower House, and the' number of members of the Council was fixed at half the. number of the House. The Bill also provided for a steady infusion of newblood into the Uppej- Chamber without breaking its continuity. "No Reflection." , Mr. ANDERSON (MatauraJ, in supporting the' second reading, said it would 1 be a wild stretch of imagination to suppose that the country at' large would elect the present members of the .Up-per-House. Ho did not . wish to reltect upon the present Legislative Council.' (Laughter.) Mr. Anderson was referring, to the Liberal party when Mr. -Massey interrupted: "You don't call theso people Liberals?" -, j Mr. Anderson: Well they call themselves Liberals. Continuing, Mr. Anderson said he thought that the separate Maori reprcsbntation should lie discontinued, especially in the Upper House. The principle of proportional representation should be followed in the Bill. '0 A Revisory Body. . Mr. HANAN (Invercargill) said that the Upper House undoubtedly had a higher status now' than it had had for many -years. (Hear, hear.) The initiation of . some very progressive measures had come-from the Legislative Council. If reform was to take place the Upper House should'be made'"purely a revisory body." There should be no encouragement of party government in the Upper House. What was desirable was a system that would provide a safety valve in the event of. difficulties and deadlocks., The trend of public "opinion in all progressive countries was m favour of democratic machinery of government. It .was a pity that the Upper House was not given a better opportunity for the revision of Bills. ' . . Mr. liANG (Manukau) was of opinion that the farming interests were not sufficiently represented in the Legislative Council. , ' • Mr. JENNINGS (Taumarunni) held that it would be hard Ito imagine a system worse than the present. Recent appointees to the Council had, however, been-imbued-with one great fact—that the will of the masses of the people should ho upheld. The Government should submit a Bill on the subject. . Sir William STEWARD (W'aitaki) said that he favoured the reform of tho Legislativo "Council : on different lines from those outlined in the Bill. If the country got a chance it would approve, both tho reform of the Council and the constitution of the Executive by election. Mr. FISHER (Wellington Central) said that the present 1 Legislative Council consisted of- 38 nominees of the Government and four members appointed under the old nominative' system.. Some' of tho more rcceut appointees to the' Council wero ornaments ..to tho Legislature; but others were, not. in that position. Special qualifications ought to be required in tho case of a member of the Upper House. -M;; T. ; E.' TAYLOR (Christchurch North) said that the creation of the Upper Hquso in New Zealand was an act of mimicry. It was not created on account of the need of the nation, and it was not supplying the need of the nation at present. It was not right that the Executive should nominate members to an Upper House. The Executive had no right in a democracy to bring into existence, any part of the legislativo machine. He thought that the Upper House was undemocratic, and in a country like New Zealand an absolutely useless institution. Members of the : House would do their duty much more carefully if there was no Second Chamber. Sir Joseph Ward's Views. Tho PKIME MINISTER said,, that if the system advocated by Sir Wm. Steward and Mr. Russell had been adopted, we would have had a life membership in the Council, and he did not think that was a K°od. thing. When the ,: Government determined on a seven years', life, " tho whole question was 'thoroughly considered, "he Bill would have the effect of keeping this matter before the.people, but it was •too much to expect that it could be placed oil the without! an apnenl to'the. people. Even if it was a Government Bill it would involve'ail appeal to 'the. people. It was not.to be supposed that the other House would aareo to STXeu a Bill until tho nation was consulted. therefore, the discussion that night was an aeademic one. He was not opposed to reform of the Council on legitimate lines, though he did not agree with the provisions of the present Bill. He did not think' the system of election that obtained in Australia was as good as ours. Where was the objection to the Executive of a democratic Parliament, representing as it did tho majority of Parliament, appointing members to the Upper House?- In the days of Mr. Ballance the objection to the system was that in the Lower Hoiise there Wero men who went for drastic reforms. • The Legislative Council, on the other hand, represented. the Tory element. Neither party.-should be allowed to .swamp the Upper House. If there were 40 Liberal members in the Upper House it would not be. right for another party to appoint 45 men to swamp them. If that were attempted it' would lead to an irresistible demand for the abolition of the Upper House. . He denied that there was any real demand for the reform of the • Upper House. He believed the bi-cameral system was the' best for'this country. For himself he did not see why the House should not retiirn the members of . the Upper House. Trenchant Remarks by Mr. Massey. ;Mr. MASSEY (Leader of the Opposition) said .the Prime .Minister's position was this: He would not kill the Bill, but he would not allow it to live. Ho denied his statement that if a system of enlarged electorates were adopted it would lead to the return of members of the wealthier class. The experience in Australia lately showed that such was a: fallacy. It was also not a fact that the Legislative Conncil were opposed to the Advances to Settlers Act. Then ha would ask why it would be necessary to go to . the country if a Legislative Council Reform Bill were passed. If tho Prime Minister would introduce such a Bill he would take the risk when he went back to his constituents. The country had asked for such a reform until it was sick of it. The Prime Minister had referred to Sir Harry Atkinson's Government as a Conservative Government, but it was a singular fact that two members of the, present so-called Liberal party— the Hons. T. Mackenzie and Jas. Carroll —were members of that Government. It was all very well to say that the refonn of tile-Council should come from within; when would that be? If his party got into power, the reform of tho Council would be • one oi the .first matters which would engage its attention. Ho .would ask the "Premier if he would ■take up the Bill, for if he did his party would support the principle. Our Legislative Council was the poorest specimen of a legislative Chamber in the Empire. The seven year term took away tho independence of members. Ho would let tho number of the Council go down to twenty, and then begin to mako it elective. In his opinion there 6hould be a Council of forty members elccted under the proportional representation system with enlarged electorates. The people should elect a councillor because they knew, hi in j not because he went round the whole electorate making promises to jiaint the parish, flag-jjole. etc.

Jlr. RUSSELL, in replying, agreed with Sir. Mas?ey's j>oiiit tlicit candidates for the Council ehpuld not carry oil election campaigns like, candidates for the House. .The second rending was agreed to at 0.10 a.m. to-dny, and the Bill was set down for committal a mouth hence. The House then rose.