UPPER HOUSE REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1566, 9 October 1912, Page 8

UPPER HOUSE REFORM.

A SHORT BILL. tiik ti;i;m of appointment.. The I'lilME MINISTER moved the second reading of the Legislative Council Hill, iic said thai the fenbjt'c-t of Legisliilive Council reform had,been sufficientlv- discussed fur one ses.-ion. The Hill xuve the Government iho right to appoint members of the Legislative Council tor a. ler"m trf three years iii Mead of seven years. The Government might iinil it iicccssirv lo sippuiiit additional • members to the Council. To make the appointments'for seven years would he awkward, because it woulif interfere with I lie iii -t election of Councillors in 1911, and would put. the country lo unnecessary ■jxpen.-e. ■-Mr. Dnvey allied whet her it would not suffice to appoint members for it term to end with the dale of the elections in 1!) H. Mr. Massey: That is a Committee objection. .Mr. T. M. WILFORD (Hutt) said that lie had at one time favoured reform of the Upper House, but had now come (o regard it as an expensive superfluity/ lie dissonted from the view that the Upper House might be made partly elective and partly nominative. He considered that the Prime Minister was making one of the mistakes of his life in putting the cart before the hone. Proportional representation'should be . , tried first in the Lower Hpuse. Proportional representation introduced a broader franchise. The Prime Minister: That is not what the Imperial Commission said. Mr. Wilford said that it was quite absurd to propose that one set of representatives of the people should override the decisions of another set of representatives of the people. He ridiculed the idea that any difficulty would be experienced in securing an alteration of the Constitution Act, stating that he lindvisilcd the House of Commons .when the Government of India Bill was going through, and had found only 17 Government members and 11 Oppositionists in their placcs. The Prime. Minister: We can do better than that here. Mr. Wilford advocated a. system under' which Rills passed by the Lower Houso would be revised only by the Crown Law Office. Mr. Wilford concluded at 5.25 p.m., and the-discussion was tarried on until 5.30 p.m., by Messrs.'T. K. Sidey and G. W. Forbes." The Term of Appointment. Mr. FORBES", speaking after the dinner adjournment,/'endorsed a suggestion made by Mr. Sidey that appointments to the I,'pper.House should be made only for the term of the present Parliament. ' Mr.' Forbes said that from the standpoint of either thought, tone, and breadth : of vision the discussion by the Upper House of the Government Bill making its constitution elective, would bear comparison with any debate that had. ever taken place in the Council. Mr. Forbes accused Government members of being deterred by the parly Whip from faking part in an important constitutional discussion. He stated that he.had always favoured abolition of the Up'p«r House. Id framing its proposals for'the reform of' the t'pper House, the Government had absolutely neglected the consideration of economy, and it was' pushing its proposals on narrow party lines. Sir JOSEPH WARD (Awarua) said thai ho would support the Dill. He did not believe that the Prime Minister intended that there should be any election of members to the t'pper House until after the next general election. The chances wtfe that the Prime Minister would then be sitting on the other si'lo of the House. Mr. Massey: Don't you make any mistake about that! Sir- Joseph' Ward said that he would support a proposal, 'in Committee, to reduce the term of appointment under the Bill from three years to two. This would clear the way for tin appeal to the country, by both branches of the Legislature, at the next general election. Look- 1 ing back over a.period of years, it. was difficult' to say tliaf. the Council had lagged behind public opinion. Even _ during the last I'.fUrii years, the t'pper House had been in some matters more progressive than the Lower House. Conflicts were certain under the proposed altered system. Men returned'by large constituencies would undoubtedly decline to be dominated by the oilier branch of the Legislature. Sir Joseph Ward again ■stated his opinion that it. would he impossible under this Hill to change the constitution-of the other branch of the, Legislature until tho gendral election after next. . , The Hon. I). BUDDO (Ivaiaiioi) eaid that lie would support tho Bill if tho lerm of appointment were made concurrent wilh that of the present Parliament. He twitted Government members with their silence. Mr. Buddo suggested that this Bill should be held over for a session and that the Government should introduce legislation to deal with both, Houses. Ho dissented from the proposal to abolish the Upper House. The Bill was one of those little measures which-conld bo done with, but which could very much better be done without. Opposition Suspicions. Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said there were, two questions the country had.a right to ask the Government concerning this measure. They were: Did the Government intend to make any fresh nominations to the Council during th? life of tho present Parliament'? And what was the need for the fresh nominations foreshadowed in the Bill? He argued that, there . was no need to stuff the Legislative Council with friends of the. present Government, who were no doubt looking for rewards. There was nothing in the attitude of the Council towards the Government' to justify that, and it would be soon enough for the Government to take the power to make nominations to the Council when tho attitude of that decaying institution niade that course compulsory.' Mr. J. A. HAINAN (Inveroargill) said the Bill was a perpetuation of the old undemocratic system-of nomination. It. was all part of a scheme—fill a ruse. This Government did not propose to reform the Council, but merely to put some of their friends, in the Upper House. Mr. Massey: We can put them there for seven years now. Mr. Hanan declared that the Government had dropped its main policy, and adopted a policy of political patronage. Mr. W. JT. D. BELL (Wellington Suburbs) said the speeches of tht Opposition members had 'Amused him. Thev were prepared to rail and shout against the Bill, but- they were not- prepared to vote ugainst it. Mr. Ilanan: Wait and see. Mr. Bell pointed out, in answer to the arguments raised, that- the Bill was not necessary to empower the Government to appoint their friends to the Upper. House. Mr. H. G. ELL (Christchurch South) said the Government had failed to keep certain of their olection pledges in order to make way for resolutions which had caused tho • House to waste time' to no purpose, while legislation -in t.he interests of the workers was being dropped. The Necessity for the Bill, The.Hon. W. F. MASSET (Prime Minister) said the waste of time and-of the country's money in the. House that afternoon was the worst ho had ever experienced. .Mr. Isitt: You don't think much of flaxmill 'workers! , Mr. Massey: I don't think much of the member for Christchurch North, and I want him to know it. He did not propose to help the Opposition to waste time, • but it did not matter how long the House took to put the legislation on the order paper through, tho Government members were going to stay in session to' do it. In support of tho three years' nomination, he pointed out that, the men to lie nominated to tho Council would retire Soon after the first election. Wha: ; was the necessity for the Bill? The necessity for,the Bill was that iii the twenty-one years of tho Liberal party's regime they liad tliude a party machine Of the (Council. ' ' Mr. Russell: What .is it uoV? : . Mr. Massey.,: tt is a party machine. The result was. he said, that .the Leader of the Council now found himself a stranger in a strange land. It was therefore easy to imagine circumstances under which it would be necessary lo nominate more members, rind the Government wished t 0 |je iu a position (o nominate new ' members for. a shorter term fhnu seven years. It. was suggested that, t'here would be friction and jealousy U-tween the two' -Houses. because the Upper House would lie inclined to regard it-elf as t-hc dominant House, chiefly because mcmb2i's of the Lower House would rcprt-ent the smaller constituencies. This l«inl had been foreseen, for all members, of I he ijoU'f would nftir" lhnt.ll.if H6u«. w'hicli 'controlled exDenuiture unit Im'tha.

dominant House, and it was proposed thiil tlie House of Representatives should keep for itself control of the purse. .Speaking of wiisle of time again, he said lie could remember a return asked for by a member of tho Houm* asking for the cost, of Parliament whilo it was.in session. Ho far .is ho could remember, the costwas .tun per hour. At that -rate the speeches, on the Hill had cost the country .I'liO. .Mr. Isitt: What do you cost tho country 't Mr. Massey: My speech is worth .£3O an hour. (Laughter.) Carried on the Voices, A division was called, and the bells were rung, but when the members were all summoned inlo tho chamber (he Opposition would not call a division. The Bill was therefore carried on the voices. There were fiiint jeers and laughter from the Government benches, and the Prime Minister asked, "Where's your 'courage.-" AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY BILL. The Auckland University Amendment Bill (tho Hon. J. Allen) was committed. . Mr. R. M'CALLUM (Wairau) moved an amendment to Clause , s to niakeit illegal for members of tho Professorial Board to sit on the College Council. '■.'•' The amendment was defeated 'by 39 votes to 18. ' ■ ' • Mr. A. E. GLOVER (Auckland Central) moved a clause providing for-the election of two members of the council by. schqo) committees in tho Auckland University College district. The Hon. Jas. ALLEN said that although'the proposals in the Bill had been before the public for- two years , not a single person in Auckland had ever asked for the amendment proposed by Mr. Glover. The Minister promised that next year he would bringdown h comprehensive Bill widening the representation upen iall the University College Councils: . . Messrs. 'Russell and Hanan supported the amendment. On a division, the amendment was negatived by 37 votes , to 21. •Mr. J.- A. HANAN (Invercargill) moved to insert a new clause providinß that one. member of the. Auckland University Council should.be elected by public school teachers-in the ' University district and ono member by secondary school' teacners in that area. ' " ' ,' ■ • : The Minister refused to- accept ,the amendment, and it was negatived, by <J» votes to 18. • ' • .', 1/ ' ■ The Committee passed to consideration of the Wanganui River Trust Amendment Bill at 11.25 p.m. , '• ■ . ■ ' \n amendment was insorted, on the motion of the Prime Minister, providing that tenants of the Wanganui Kiver'lru-t should be paid compensation for improvements at tho end of their leases. ■ This Bill mid the Hauraki Plains AmendWnt Bill were dealt with in about three .minutes. Some minor amendments were, made, with tho approval of the Hon. A. L. He.rdman, in the Publio Trust Office Amendment Act. VALUATION OF LAND. Tho Valuation of Land Amendment Bill (the Hon. W. F. Massey) was committed. The Hon. W. P. MASSEY moved to add to the definition of improvements a clause setting' out that improvements did. not include "work done or material used on or for the benefit of the land by the Crown ■or by any statutory public body, except m> far as the same has been paid for by the owner or occupier, either.by way of direct contribution or by way of special rates, on loans- raised for the purpose of constructing within a county any road, bridge,' irrigation works, water races, drainage works, or river protection works: "Provided that the valuo of improvements made out of loan moneys raised for the piirpo.s3 of constructing within a county any road, bridge, irrigation work?, water races, drainage works, or river protection .works as. aforesaid shall not exceed the amount of principal estimated by the Valuer-Goneral 'to have been repaid by the. owner in respect of any such loan, by way of special rates." The clause as amended was passed. An amendment was inserted, on Mr. G. Witty's motion, to exempt from taxation not. onlynntive trees, but also all shelter or ornamental, or utility'trees, the las.tr named to include all fruit trees.' On the motion of the Prime Minister, a new clan.-o was added, providing that the Act should come into operation on April 1. 1913. " . As soon as the short title of the Laud Tax and Income Tox Bill bad been passed, the Prime''Minister moved to report progress. NEW BILLS. The Coal Mines Amendment Bill, tho Dunedin Garrison. Hall Trustees' EmSowering Bill, and the Military Pensions lill wero introduced -by (iovernor's .Messase and read a first time. The HUME Ml-NISTER stated that the military pension would be. available for every veteran who'produced-his war medal. • '' Mr. A. E. GLOVER. (Auckland Central) congratulated the Prime Jliuister upon introducing a fine humanitarian measure. The PRIME MINISTER 'moved that the Coil Mines Amendment Bill should be read n second time pro forma and referred to the. Mines Committee. The motion was agreed to. , The' House rose at 0.30 a.m.