THE REFORM BILL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1526, 23 August 1912, Page 6

THE REFORM BILL.

, DEBATE RESUMED. VIEWS. OF THE HON. S. T. GEOKGE. . The adjourned debate on. the second reading of the Legislative Council Elections Bill was resumed at 2.45 p.m. The Hon. S. THORNE GEORGE seconded the motion for the second reading, but in doing so he said that lie was doing ■ bo merely in support of the elective principle as applied to the Council. There were certain changes whicli he would liko ' .to see made in the Bill, and if they were not made in Committee, ho could not give his support to the Bill. He .had always been a supporter of the nomination, of members of the House for life, and if a proper selection liad been made of the ! men suitable for nomination,' a most excellent Chamber could have been constituted. But in 1891 the life nomination had been superseded by a most objectionable business, the seven years' nomina- . lion. If the Council was to be elective, the question arose as to the franchise on , which it was to be elected. He argued : that the simple majority vote was not always a fair method, and he discussed the bases of the franchise qualifications for the Second Chamber in other British Dominions. In Australia, the Second Chamber was elected on the popular vote, but very strict provisions were mado to deal with a possible deadlock; it was possible to dissolve the whole Senato. The majority system had already proved so unsatisfactory here that the second ballot had been tried as a remedy. This had proved n failure, as all lion, members knew. For the election of members of the other Chamber, ho thought the alternative voting system was the best. And of all the methods in vogue, 1m thought the Gregory system, used now in Tasmania, would be the bost for the election - of tho Council. The Bill presented was primarily a proportional representation Bill, but the principle was departed from as regards Maori members. They were to be nominated by tile Government, and there was no reason why the Government i should not nominate five or six. His next objection to tho Bill was that insufficient provision wr.s made for a. possible deadlock. Another departure from proportional representation was the provision that twenty members should be elected from the North Island and twenty from tho South Island.. In the other House the proportion was 45 for the North Island and 3o for the feoutli. Ishinci, including Natives. On this basis the allocation of ... 40 members of tho Council would be 221 for the North Island and Yi\ for the South Island. He did not agree to the two electorates, bccause in sucli big electorates there could be no community of interest among electors and candidates. Wellington and Auckland cities could be relied upon to nominate at least ten apiece. Hon. 11. D. Bell: Nonsense. Mr. Thome George maintained that this possibility could bo relied upon, and > that fully forty candidates would be nominated altogether to represent the .N'orth Island. The result would be that all -ec- '• tions, opinions, or sects in the country miirht be represented. Whrti a critical division came it would not i>e a matter ot whipping up members of particular partics, but of arranging with warring cr heterogeneous factions. It would be a Government, by cliques. .Should the measure pass the .second reading, it would be advisable to refer it to a Select Committee of the Council,, who would knock it into shape,, for he thought the machinery clauses in it were unworkable. NOT DEMANDED BY THE COUNTRY. THE ELECTIVE PROPOSALS CRITICISED. The Hon. 0. SAMUEL congratulated the Leader of the Council on his speech. That hon. gentleman had said he occupied a position of isolation, but if that were to it was because he must vote for measures irrespective of his opinions. ("Hear, i.; hear," and laughter.) Ho must vote as ■ his Cabinet decided, whatever his opinj ions. He (Mr. Samuel) entirely disagreed ' -with' the views of the Lender of the Houee when he Eflid that tho Bill wo-s lo effect a i ohojiire from, the' system for the choice oi

i members of the Council from nomination . to election, and that all elso in the Bill was mere method. But he (Mr. Samuel) said that the Government had no right to attempt to ' legislate piecemeal. This was an amendment of the legislature Act, and why should not a Bill bo brought down to deal with both Houses, instead of trying an experiment in the Council. AVould it not be better to consider the advisability of abolishing this Chamber altogether? Did not the reasons for the existence of the second chamber rest upon conditions which would not stand if it were an elective Chamber? Tho question ought to be submitted whether the Second Chamber should be abolished altogether, and whether the primary Chamber should not be trusted to do its work without the supervision which it was the Council's privilege -to bestow upon it? He quoted extensively from Hansard to show that the Hon. Sir Frederick Whitaker had advocated the necessity for a Second Chamber, chosen by an electoral college of both Houses of Parliament. If a change was necessary in the Legislature, as was suggested, he argued that the Council should be elected either by the House of Representatives, or by bofh Houses, or that it should be abolished altogether rather than that it should be electcd on the popular franchise, as was' the primary Chamber. Why did the Council exist at all? The Second Chamber existed to prevent hasty legislation, to moderate the speed of legislation, to revise, amend, and improve rash legislation, or to retard it until the constituencies were capable of being made to understand what was being done. If the Council were elected members .would have to receive deputations, receivo hundreds of letters, would have to give pledges not according to their beliefs, but according to what election necessities required, would, in fact, be subject to all the disabilities of the Lower House, aud would be useless for the purposes of a revisionary Chamber. The Government, he declared, had no mandate from the people to reform the Upper House on the lines suggested. This suggestion could be got rid off—that the people demanded it. .Hon., J. T. Paul: No, we haven't got rid of it. The Hon, G. Jones: The question is, who axe the people? I The Hon. 0. Samuel said lie hoped the | Council would approach the subject of the Bui with the one motive of servin" tho best_ interests of tho people of the Dominiou. It'was unworthy to suggest that the proposal would be considered as committing suicide. He was in the main still m favour of the maintenance of the present system of selecting members of the Council. Anything that tended to weakeu i S inducements to. honesty on the part of thoss who had the Govomment of the country in their hands was bad. It was not even wise to take away the functions from the men in charge ot the Government, because they mid not used those functions well, -tie said that the appointment of commissioners to control the Civil- Service and the railways was only to set up a buffer between the House and tlio Government, and the buffer was necessary because the preceding Government had got into trouble because of their N failure to please m tlieir exercise of control over railways and Civil Service. Election on a popular vote must lead to the growth m tho Council of the abuses of party. What happened in the Lower Chamber? H as not much time w-asted in recrimination, and ill the service of party or cabal, without regard to the good of the country ? If the Council needed reform, what must be said of the House of Representatives? If the members of the-Primary Chamber devoted to their work one-hundredth part of tho care, attention, and impartiality that members of the Council bestoweel upon it, they would have the right to criticise the Second Chamber. Tho Hon. J. B. Callan: There would be no need for a Legislative Council then. The Hon. 0. Samuel said that the proposed change would make the Council subject to all those influences which rendered members of tho House of Representatives incapable of doing their work. In any case, he declared that tho s\stem of proportional representation was" bad. It would mean that, without regard to honesty, good character, or intelligence, a candidate's election would depend upon his ability to get liis name on a ticket. A fraction only of tho electors could have any real knowledge of their candidate, and tlie only safeguard which ejection on popular franchise provided would be removed. He .would be willing fo support the second reading of tho Bill if it were shown to him that some change was necessary in-regard to the appointment of members of the Council. But if this change would be bad in the interest of the people, he would have no cption but to vote against tho second reading, aud he held that the elective jnincinle would so reduce the usefulness of tho Council that there would be no justification . for its continuing part of Parliament. If the Council were to be elective, it could rightly objet to the limitation of its powers as the Bill proposed; it would have a right to have a fair number - of the Ministers in the Council, and a right to turn out the Goyernmenf. This would be especially so as every. member of tlie Council would be able to say that he represented! -10 times as many people as any member of the Primary Chamber. Ho would oppose the second reading, because he belic.-ed fliat tho Hill, if carried into law, would be disastrous to the best interests of the people as a whole. (Hear, hear.) MOTION BY THE HON. J. RIGG. SELECTION, NOT ELECTION. Tho Hon. J. RIGG opened the evening's speeches. He said that there was no doubt that tlie speech ot' the Hon. Mr. ■ Samuel-was a very eloquent one. "Whether or not it would stand criticism would bo seen ill the discussion which followed. ' If the Council had one function more than another, it was the function of rejecting hasty legislation. The proposal was experimental, and if tried at all should bo tried first on the other Hoiim-. (Hear, hear.) The Bill had been brought down hy a Government of whom it could not be certain that it .possessed the confidence of the people of the country. That boing the case, it was Ihe Council's duty, following constitutional practice, to vote against the second reading of Ihe Bill on that ground alone. He proposed to defend tho principle of nomination for a iimited term. History repeated itself, and could it be imagined that the present Government would nominate for the Council men who would reject their measure? Strange as it was, that was the view of the non-party man. That was the view of the Hon. Mr. Samuel. "To me," he continued, "It is like the fly in tlie amber. To me it is a puzzle how he got there." Hon. Mr. Samuel: It is a great compliment to him to get there. (I.<tugliterj. .lion. Mr. Rigg: If may be a compliment to the lion, gentleman. To me it is a puzzle. The Hon. Mr. Rigg. continuing, said that in order to make the nominative system affective, they must have a periodical change of parties. They could achieve by the nominative system exactly what lie thought that the Government was seeking to Ho by election. Had there been that chanxo of parlies iu Now. Zealand..

which might have falcon place in Ihe past 211 years, they would have hail Ihe element of criticism which was necessary to its usefulness, and the Council's labours would have been much m'orc oll'octive $hau they had been. Had tlmt change taken place the proposed .change would never have been heard of. Therefore, he said that there was no need to change the present constitution of the Council. He admitted that the Council might be_ improved in sonic respects. Would an eltetivo Chamber bring forth the persons best suited to do the* work? With two Chambers elected on the one system, there must be a means to get over the difficulty of deadlocks, which difficulty tho Bill did-not-provide for. .AVith aii eleotive second Chamber, men of the. 'right type might not be got into the Council. The method ought to be selection, not election. If there was to be a change, let it be the abolition of Ihe second Chamber. If the Chamber was to exist by selection, those who could be entrusted with the whole government of tho country should he the selectors. The hon. gentleman commended the lucidity of the Hon. 11. 1). Hell's explanation of the measure, and hlso the moderation exercised by the Hon. Mr. Bell in his speech, liow had this cry for' an alteration in the constitution of the Council first arisen? It had emsuafed first, lie believed, from the Labour bodies, who had wanted the Council abolished; but he did not think that the Labuur bodies had ever'asked for an elective Council. It was left to a Prime Minister, who had done more than anyone else to sap the independence' of the Council, to mako tho suggestion ot reforming: the Council. This was.' found to bo a good election cry. If the Council rejected the Bill, and tho Government made a number of appointments, tho cry for reform would die. He desired to give them an opportunity of taking that course. He moved that tho Bill should be read a second timo "this day six months.'" THE HON. GEORGE JONES. NO CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE. The Hon. George .Tones said that the quality of tho speeches of the members of the Council during this debate was a conclusive proof flint no change in tho Council should bo mnde—that no 'change ill the constitution of the Council should bo made which might have the effect of changing its quality. He said that,the Bill had been "thrown down like a lione to a dog." Later in his speech, Mr. Jones observed that he did not object to the new party calling itself Liberal, but it was at least ungenerous of the, party to heap obloquy upon those whose policy they had stolen. The Hon. Mr. Bell: Is this part of the policy? The Hon; Mr. Jones: "The part, of the policy you will find in the Budget." He proceeded to say that -ij: was an insult to apply the terms of sychophant and of successive Liberal Governments to members. The Hon. Mr. Bell: I didn't say so. The Hon. Mr. Jones:. No; but you are a rather good specimen of your class. The hon, gentleman should iiot. bo the Minister for the Interior, which sounds like something in a cook-shop. (Laughter.) He should have been Attorney-General. At 9.15 p.m. the Council rose till 2.30 p.m. to-day.