PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1810, 25 July 1913, Page 6

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

COUNCIL REFORM.

PREMIUM BONDS VALIDATION BILL.

RACING' PERMITS.

MR. T. M. WILFORD'S BILL KILLED.

■„ The, Legislative Council met at 2.30 ? p.m. .

■ The Hon. J. R. SINCLAIR resumed tho debate' on the second reading of tho Legislative Council Bill. He s*iid that unfortunately he could not support all that the Leader of tho Council had said, but he did agree with tho elective principle in the Bill less because there was any great demand by the people for what had been called reform of the Council, than for the reason that the time had come when tlie people of this country should be allowed to elect their own representatives to the Council. He proposed, however, to support the retention of a nominated element in the Council, for he did not think that nomination "under proper safeguards necessarily was a menace. He would support a nominated element in the Council because, to make tho whole Council elective, would be merely to reproduce the Lower House. .He proposed that half the Council should be elected and half nominated. A wholly nominated Upper Chamber and an educated people could not long co-exist. Wero our people equipped to exercise the vote proposed to be given to them? He submitted that tlie answer must be in the affirmative, and the right of the people to have a voico in the selection .of the Upper House could not be denied. Wero he not satisfied that to pass into the law : tho Bill in its entirety and to make tho Chamber wholly elective, would be to destroy, the Chamber, he would support the Bill. The difficulty was to make tho Chamber representative, and at the same time to maintain it. in a condition to , perform thoso functions which a Second Chamber must discharge. If such a Chamber wero established as would not bo able.to discharge the special functions of a Second Chamber, the Second Chamber would be inevitably destroyed. Ho believed that the Second Chamber in the New Zealand Legislature ought to bo retained, and he took it that the ob.icct of the Government was to retain it. In his opinion a partly nominative and partly elective Chamber would be the strongest and the best Chamber possible. It might appear to some honourable members that there would be an anomaly in having members in the same Chamber holding their seats upon different principles, but-this would not be so in fact. The same difference existed in other Second Chambers, notably the British House of Lords. Second Chamber Functions;

The functions of a- Secoud Chamber were to revise legislation, and—what was more important—to check hasty legislation in the.interests of the people, i'rom the very nature of an Elective Chamber, it would be impossible to have in it that element which would check legislation. Again, if the Second Chamber were partly nominative, it could not ever become tlie rival of tho'Lower House, and there would be 110 need for those troublesome provisions to release a deadlock. He . had no fear that men would be nominated who were not iit to sit in the Chamber, because nowadays a great deal of attention was given by the public to the constitution of the Legislative Council. This being so, the Government dare not, in the face of a vigilant public opinion, appoint unsuitable'nominees to tho Council. If a further safeguard were necessary, let it bo provided that members once appointed v.ould not' be eligible for renomination. Then members would be absolutely independent j they would have nothing to fear/ nothing to hope for. He did nut think, however, this safeguard would te necessary. The Bill, he maintained, contained 'no provision by which the Chamber would retain that element which would check hasty legislation, and so protect, the democracy i'rom the result of its owii rashness. In other countries, where there were two Elective Chambers, the two Chambers-were" elected by different constituencies, on a different franchise, and by a ditt'erent system of election. This was so' in the case of the South African Union, the last attempt of tho nation at constitution-building. A nominated element in the Upper Houso was retained there also. The constitution of tho Australian Commonwealth was deliberately rejected. He (Mr. Sinclair) argued that it was not a fair parallel to draw to compare tho constitution of the Australian Federal Parliament, and that of our own Legislature. In any case the Senate was tho House representing tho States, and though elected by the samo electors, tho constituencies wero different, and the constituencies being the States, had widely different interests. In all other places where there were two elected houses, there was some difference in the franchise, or in the voting qualification required, of the electors.

Proportional Representation. .Referring to proportional representation, ho said that if the system was to bo applied to elections to the Council, it must also be applied to thu other House. If it was a letter system of election, then there was 110 reason for refusing to adopt .it for the People's Chamber. For his own part he had doubts about proportional representation. In actual fact, proportional representation had many supporters, and many opponents in countries where it had been tried. One serious objection to putting tho system into effect at once was that so much depended "in elections under it 011 organisation. If it were to be introduced at all, then a considerable lapse of time should be allowed after its adoption and ,beforc its introduction. Owing to the proportional system giving an lulvantagc to tho organised sections of the community, there was danger of those sections who were organised getting more than their full quota of representatives, and of those larger unorganised sections not getting their full quota. Another objection to the election of candidates by large electorates was that it gave the rich man an advantage over the man of small means. He admitted that lie srnv 110 clear way to a remedy for this evil. There should also be provision against canvassing, for canvassing involved pledges for members, and members of a Second Chamber should not come back from the country pledged. He maintained that his proposal to retain a nominative element in the Council would be the best system possible to conserve to the Chamber those powers and qualities it should retain if it was to continue to exist as a part of our constitution. AN OPPONENT. "WHAT IS THE HURRY?" The Hon. G. JONES declared that tho Bill was a pattern of legal construction, Never had the framing of a measure before the Council surpassed this Bill in its excellence of form. But there his admiration for the Bill ended. A member of the Council who voted for it would he signing his own death warrant, and the death warrant of the Council as a whole. He took eieeption to the statements freely circulated as an excuse for "the mania for tampering with the constitution of the Council" that tho Council, as at present constitued, was unsatisfactory. The changes made in the Bill this year had justified the Council in rpjectinj* the Bill, for he held, in spito of what tho Hon. H. D. Bell had said, that the Council did reject tho Bill. He was proud of the Council's action in rejecting tlie Bill' hastily submitted last year. What was tho hurry for tho Bill, anyway? Did tho peoplo of the country know what the Bill meant, and had any effort been made by tho Government or by anyone else to educate the people as to what tho effect of tho Bill would be? The Council had been informed that tiro Houa p£ Kaumaßtefeu

had passed a series of resolutions affirming the principles of the Bill, and this hod been urged as a proof that tile House supported tho 8i11..' But lie thought the House would have passed anything in its then stato of mental storm. The Hon. H. D. Bell rose to a point of order, pointing out that the honourable member was referring to what was done in another place. Mr. SPEAKER directed Mr. Jones to refrain from such comments, but Sir. Jones did not refrain until the point of order was raised again a minute later. Mr. Jones said the Hon. Mr. Bell had asked the Council to declare what the Council wanted. Surely rather it was tho province of the Government to say what it wunted? 1 Mr. Bell: You have the Bill. Mr. Jones: This Council wants nothing but that respect and protection to which its past entitles it. The work tho Council had done was a standing monument to its usefulness, and a proof of tho wisdom of its constitution. What had the Council done to merit this' treatment by tlie Government? Where was the need for the frantic hurry to change it? He intended to vote against the Bill. The debate was adjourned 011 the motion of the Hon. W. C. I' 1 . Carncross. The Hon. H. D. BELL said he did not proposo to ask the Council to sit on the following evening, but he did intend to ask the Council to sit on Tuesday evening to finish the debate. The Council rose at 1.30 p.m.