THE COUNCIL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1532, 30 August 1912, Page 6

THE COUNCIL.

REFORM BILL DEBATE, THE SECOND READING CARRIED. MAJORITY OF SIXTEEN. ■ . .. ■'. ...' • ■ \ ■'-.., . ■ The ; :tegislative Council met at.2.30 yesterday afternoon! '.';•' '■■'.' The Hon.- G. J. SMITH continued the debate on the second reading of the Legislative Council Elections Bill. Mr.'Smith said he had been struck during the debate by the fact that some members of the Council who had been looked upon as strong Conservatives had advocated a change in the .system of appointing members,' whilo others looked upon as Democrats, advocated the present system of nomination... Ho thought the Leader of the Council had adopted tho right course in/introducing this measure in the Council instead of letting it come up from ! "andther place." Personally ho thought thero was a demand in the country- for somo amendment in regard to tho Council. Had the open party , not had so long , a reign .and controlled tho appointments for sucli a long period, tho demand would probably not havo been so strong as it wns' to-day. Personally ho supported the / system of • election. - Tho only question ■ that aroso in his mind was whether the election should bo secondary or direct as proposed in the Bill. Ho thought there was a good deal to bo eaid for the electoral college suggestion mado by Mr. ■ Stevens, lor one thing, it would result in a.laTge saving of expense. He was inclined to favour the'direct vote, although he,recognised that there was a great danger of duplicating the legislative machinery, and making tho .Council a reflex of public opinion as expressed in tho other House. Ho.thought the division of the country into two electorates would bo a good tiling , , and would ;make for even better' representation of the farmer than at present, although many speakers had held that this was not so. Some provision, wpuld have to be made for settling and he thought this should he dono .by a joint meeting of both Houses. He would vote far the second reading, but at the .same t.inio' urged upon the Leader of tho Council the advisableness of holding the matter over, a3 hod been f . suggested, for further consideration. It it were- held over ho felt euro a bettor Bill could be got through later. THE HON. PR...COLLINS. STARTED AT THE WRONG END. The-Hon. Dr.. COLLLXS said-tliero was no doubt a demand foe a-, change, but it might not be so strongjis construed. To' his mind a start had been mado at. the wrong end.- •■ Tho best course would be lo have tlie members of thoother House elected by a system of pi'oportiuoal representation,. After.they hod been so elected and wheir they first assembled they would elect their Prime Minister and tho Min-istry.-"And the Ministry in turn would nominate the Council. Tho nomination, ho thought, should be for a. term of six years; ■ Such a scheme would, he was sure, do away with party.feelings. Ho would support the second reading of the Bill, but hoped-'it- -would" be referred to a Select Committee.", .' ..' • ."'.-' A MAORI REPRESENTATIVE. THE HON. T, -PATtyTA'S VIEWS. Tho Hon. T. PABATA said he would \<otlcl' .f-oif the tf;eond reading, but he Teserved-the right to vote against the ' third reading if the modifications that must take place were not satisfactory to him.' "Referring to Maori representation Mr. Parata said he preferred that it should remain as it had always been. The nonninativo system was tho best in this coiuxcctibn because if it wero left to tho ballot they might have elected a Maori parvenu 'who had no tribal distinction whatever To his mind the Maori reprepentation should be by the Hangatiras of tho-Maori people. .

THE HON. J. RIGG'S AMENDMENT.

LOST BY NINETEEN VOTES. This concluded the debate. The am«idment"mov«d by. th« Hon. J. Rim: that the Bill bo read this day fix months was then "put. Tho araeadmont was lost, ttj,e Tofine feeius ,thr2o< "■ ■ ""

The division list was as under:— Against the amendment (25). Bell Smith Callnn - Collins Luke Stevens, Baillio M'Lean Georgo .-•- M'Cardle Paul Ormond Barr Anstey Tucker . . Harris Steward Thompson Baldey. Loiiisso'n Johnston Wigram Miller Samuel Parata For the amendment (6). Rigg ' Gilmer , Jones Loughnan Be?han Kelly THE HON. T. KELLY. . PREFF.ES A NOMINATIVE CHAMBEE. The Hon. T. KELLY, speaking to the motion for the second reading, said it was utterly impossible for an elective Chamber to act merely as a revising or checking Chamber. Such a Chamber would insist on becoming initiative. He preferred that the Chamber should remain nominative or; failing that, the establishment of an electoral college of tho two Houses sitting together and electing a Council by ballot. The best way v to deal with the Bill now would be to refer it to a committee- of the Council. He intended to move in this direction. Personally, he thought the Council had worked very well, and no adequate reason had been given why a change should be made in the constitution. In the 20 years he had been in the Chamber there had been no serious conflict with the House of Representatives, and much valuable work had been done. Mr. Kelly subsequently gave notice that he would move that a committee of nine members bo appointed to deal with the Bill, and report tc- the Council in ' three weeks. This would give time for the matter to be fully considered. THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL. REPLY TO CRITICISM. The Hon. H. D. BELL, in a lengthy reply, thanked the Council for the careful consideration they had given the Bill. Tt had been suggested that he had acted the part of the advocate, and put on? side of tho Bill only. He would make he protestation now. Hon. members would later havo a chance to judge of their Leader in the Council. He had endeavoured to the best of his ability to give the Council tho whole of the information he had,. and to keep back nothing. So far as it lay in his power that would be his course in the Council in the future, as he believed it had been his course in his career in the past. It had been suggested (perhaps jocularly) that he personally was not sincere in introducing this matter. As a matter of, fact, he had joined the Government to advocate in the Council this very measure, and- he could assure the. Council that he believed very sincerely in tho measure. The member who had seconded the motion (Mr. Georsje) had done so with more hesitation tljan approval. ' The reservation of the right to ■ vote against the third reading of the Bill j\-ii.s very marked; Mr. George sai,d practically that he wanted certain alterations, but that ho did not think the Government would make them. Mr. Samuel had suggested that the Bill should have been delayed until a measure dealing with both Houses and their election on' a system of proportional representation, had been introduced. When it was suggested that proportional representation could be applied to single electorates, he confessed that ho became a little impatient. Proportional representation conld not be applied to the House without a revolution of existing conditions. Voices: Let us have the revolution. Continuing, Mr. Bell said that proportional representation properly applied had been demonstrated by mathematicians and by practice Ho had to express his gratitude to tho Hon. Mr. Rigg for his speech. Mr. Rigg was a. strong opponent, but ho said nothing unfair. He was wrong, however, when he said this was hasty legislation. The matter had bsen discussed and considered from every aspect, and yet when it came before tho House some members said that tho matter should be left to the voice of flie people. Mr. Rigg's advocacy was a dream. It was not possible. It might be that the public voice was not tho best, but they had to admit now that if it,was not the best it was the only one. Every civilised nation recognised that Government had now to bo loft to their masters—the people. Members had spoken of the good work the Council had dono as being evidence against tlie necessity for this measure. Because the Council had done its work faithfully in the past to a Government, that had appointed it was no guarantee that it would do so to a Government which it might suspect of possible alterations with principles and measures that ifsupported. Ho knew the Government measures would receive consideration, but did anybody say that the Council would be content to pass Bills by the shoal at .tho end.of the session because they were afraid of- losing them, and because ho asked them? The point was - wjiether -they could under the nominative system have a Chamber which meets the exigencies of party government. The question of whether the Council had done its work well or badly had no correlation {6 the subject they'had been discussing. The Possibility of a Deadlock, Referring to tho deadlock question, Mr. Bell sa|d this matter was left out deliberately,'- becauso he did not want to encumber tho measure with subject matter, which was equally matter for the House. This matter had been thought out, considered, and dealt with by men whoso judgment was entitled to consideration. The clauses were to bo found in the Commonwealth Act, and it was these clauses which were to bo inserted in the .Bill. He would be glad to havo tho Commonwealth clauses inserted in committee. He personally had had the direction of drafting the greater part of the Bill. It was an honest attempt to put before the Council in somewhat dear detail what was proposed. He could not see that'the Bill failed in this respect. Continuing, Mr. Bell said he could not nTeo to adopt the suggestion thrown out by the Hon. Mr. Ormond, that the Bill should be held over until the next election. This wa? 11'e policy of tnihba, and the policy of taihoa would not be followed bv himself or by his colleagues if he could help it. The Council, said Mr. Bell,, wanted to prevent the Government procccdin" with reform until after another election. If this was so, it was proof of the necessity for a change. '_ Mr. Bell opposed the suggestion of Mr. Stevens that an electoral college should be appointed, and also opposed the unicameral idea. .The latter system, he said, had been sriven up by practically every civilised State in the world. A unicameral system would be whojly unreasonable and against all precedent. Mr. Samuel: It would be bad, but not as biid as what this Hill proposes. Mr. Bell added that the general consensus of opinion in the Council was that a change was desirable, and that the change must bg by. election. .GrafltLos^

that tho question arose, was the election ,to be primary or secondary. It was almost absurd to , say that the people would permit some other body to elect tlio Council for them. The desire of tlie Government was to rescue the Council" from a state of impotency, nnd to extend its usefulness. So lons as tho present Administration hold power, Mr. Bell added. Parliament would control tho administration. "Isolation." Referring to his use of the word ''isolation" in introducing the Bill, Mr. Bell said he had .net used the word personally. It was a question of the position of the Ministry. They came there believing that they had behind them a mandate of tho people. First the. Government sought to uiak-o this reform, secondly to reform the public service, and thirdly they proposed to grant the freehold. Was it a pliability, he asked, that members would look with tho same eyes on the Government's measures that they had exhibited in the past The past Government was the Ministry and whole fabric which tho Council supported. Would they havo the samo faith in the present Government? He had made reference to the passing of the Libel Bill for the reason that the passing of that measure had destroyed a privilege which had existed for a century. At this stage the Acting-Speaker called Ml. Bell to order for referring to the details of a past Bill. \ The Minister bowed to the ruling, and continued to expound his theory that he could not expect the Council to put his Bill through as they did Bills for the last Administration. , Measure after measure had been passed en bloc by the Council at the end of a session, because they were advocated by the Government. The Council had passed them because they considered them part of the jn-eat, noble, and good policy of the Administration which had brought them in. Would they pass the same Bills for him? Of course they would not. The Government had brought down this Bill, and would stand by it. The/Government ,had declared its intention, and by that it would abide. SECOND READING CARRIED, THE VOTING. On a division the second reading was carried by 24 to 8, the voting being:— ■ ' For the motion (24). ' Bell ' Smith Callan Collins Luke ' Stevens . Baillie Ormond George M'Lean Paul M'Cardle . Ban- Aristey Steward Harris . Fa rata Thompson Baldie Louisson Johnston Wigrain Miller • Mills'. - • Against the motion (8). Rigg N Beehau Jenkinson Loughnan Jones •' Kelly Tucker . , Samuel The Bill was set down for committal on Tuesday next. The Council adjourned at 5.20 p.m.