OPPOSITION STONEWALL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1818, 2 August 1913, Page 6

OPPOSITION STONEWALL.

INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS.

PROGRESS OF COUNCIL REFORM BILL.

Tho -Legislative! Council met at 2.30 p.m.'' The' Hon. CAPTAIN TUCKER resumed the debate on tho second reading of the ; legislative Council Bill, and on tho Hon. o.* • Samuel's--amendment that tho debate lie interrupted and the questions covered by the "fiill referred to 1 a Select ' Committee. Ho said lie knew of no demand Jjy the .'.people .for .reform; of. tho .Council. ■Most,.people ..ivero quite - satisfied, with the Council as it- was at, present, but others urged that tho .method of nomination be amended merely and not abolished altogether. - A small: minority wanted' the' Oliaiiilierl-; abolished ' altogether. iEven supposing thero were .public claji'four for. aii'elective'Council, which .ho .(lii[' : h'6t admit, . the Council : need; not bo guided by senseless noise, He was entirely ,in. favour of nomination, and entirely'opposed to election. He suggested that,nomination to the Council might be jrtade by some method to get over the difficulty of nominations being all of one colour. He suggested that the PrimeMinister should select-a-number of men Buitable for. appointment, and that a like number should .bo nominated by -the leader, of the Opposition, and from these names'aTsel?ction of the required number Bliould. be made' by'bnllot in the same way as a,grand jury was selected. He. jn-ould. voto' against tho second reading 6 Hon. A'.' BALDEY said he, did not think the* Council'would bo improved by Veing made elective, and ho would vote egainst the Bill., , i The Hon;. -W. H. D.' BAILLIE _quoted the.opinion of Sir William Fitzberbcrt t-o the effect that the Council as constituted in'.his day was a good Assembly:

THE MINISTER REPLIES,

THE NEED, FOR CHANGE. ; The Hon. H. D. BELL, -in reply, said ' ho wished to take up part of the matter which he; necessarily omitted from his speech when >he.moved the second reading: He would accept as oommon ground between tiio Government ami tho opiporients of tho Bill that legislation to ftfjiend the constitution was rather different from other legislation, that change ought 'not to • be made merely techuse there was a demand.for it unless the demand wa9 a consistent demand over a period of years. V cry few of tho _ honourable gentlemen had .expressed satisfaction with the present system of seven years nominations. A. few had supported tins; a- majority had expressed -dissatisfaction with it, but had differed widely as to what should be substituted for He ihoped he would havo tho gppport of the Council in saying that if chauge in the constitution was. desirable, it. ought to be accepted-"by:) the ' Chamber, even if it ■were distasteful'to tho , members of the Chamber. Otherwise,•. the. constitution would bo immutable, notwithstanding that tho representative body might ask for change; Ho would address himself to :.th'e/,arguments, of those, not in a majcrky, who favoured appointment for a term of yews. Their, first contention was that the Council was independent ot party, and ' 'that" the members were chosen for :■ personal qualifications, nnd not because of their party leanings. The csperiment had been tried 'for* 20 years, .and the, members fed been-' chosen in • that time for their uoliticiil'-views or for tlieir friendship for a.' powerful Prime -Minister. He did not Bay that the men had not the ability necessary. The .result had /been .that the Chamber was full of men*of one-political ■bias; -;-"-'/. • •• . 'r ■-

Mr. Jones: No, no.-• " Mr: Bell-: What is tho use —■? Mr. Jones: They miglit tie when they Came-in, but' not.now. ; ' VMr. Samuoh- 'The atmosphere of this Chamber, is' : .-, . i ~v; ■ A Defect of Nomination. , ;, ilr,' 'Bell then-ventured to : say' that nearly all the' members'-nominated 1 were chosen fftim 1 one political party. 'Hwr'often was this-process :to be adopted?, _It k v-as a-imero"accident that tho term.of, n. jfiimber of members of the-Council was* about - to; expire" together. "Obviousfy this accident, could, not ,be expected to recur Tegnlarly; ■ If tho -Primo Minister had Eappohed' to be. called to office next year instead ;of. last ~yyar lie Would not have had the opportunity of, making somo appointments. The Crown, had the theoretical right to, .appoint an unlimited nuin-'!ber-of,membor's to the nominative Chamberi'but in" actual practice it had no such right. In New. Zealand there were three reasons—the first was tho actual floor space of the Chamber. > . Mr. Jenkinson: That's a very poor Teaeon.

. Mr. Bell:' Lthought it might appeal to jnv honourable friend. He added that the , other reasons were tho necessity for preserving 'a proper 1 relation between .the gizo otVthe Second- Chamber and the popu-' llaiC.CMmber, find tho need for haying proper regard to tho dignity pf..a]LegiS! • Jativo.Cham&r:-Ih only "one, case liiT.his-' tory had the/pow,er of-tho Crown to;create order- to. swamp-: tlio House 'of . lords, beeii extfttised; iii" England; at tli'o . will- of the'.Ministry ;uf tho. day. - -That ,was 200 years ago, u and twico since a similar jyit&n'. Jj.ad. ,'be.eii. spoken of, but never done. Actually a Ministry had not "iioimniitions to swamp a nominative : Chamber except ■to carry measures of .extreme urgency, and. the result was that a Government might ibo prevented from carrying policy measures into law.oiying to the. presence in tho-Upper House-of enemies of the Government.,... The .Ministry were now faced' with -thi necessity of iuaking appointments ..of, liew., men to replace men who ,were .trusted by tho Council, and on whoso' arguments the Council had been very largely guided. This was what brought the Government of tho day anU the Council ■ to ask. tho. Council if . that .was a desirablo state of affairs: Any , was better than one which .led to Buch results. It was' surprising that honourable gentlemen should speak as if the Government shdiild accojit that .posi- ' tion with equanimity and satisfaction.- To those honourable, gentlemen who said . thero should be. change of somo -kind thero could, be only oiio answer, and that was tho advice of Mr. Samuel: "Let ■us take counsel together." Counsel could not be taken except in Committee of tho . Council.;;, They: might not all agree, but the Council, > being v. deliberative body, could define issues and ought to doso. And it was to ignore tho deliberative duty impos- , ed on Councillors by their oath to refuse to proceed to define issues merely because •they were not Bubmittod in the form they approved; members' who wanted change ■\yere not doing anything to bring it about liy rejecting tho Bill,

"5 Tho Popular Mandate. He maintained that there was a popular demand'ioir reform of tho Council. In tho House of Representatives tho series of resolutions had been carried by an overwhelming ' majority—not the Government majority, but a much gxeator majority, aiid some without tho formality of a division. To say thiat tho Council would be the judges <rf whether there was a popular demand was towuo in a 'vicious circle. What convinced the Council _ of 1891 of the need.'for' change from the life method of appointment to the'shorter term nomination? Much less than tho evidence at present. ' And thore had been no cry then for the change which had turned out such a bad one. Tho Government of that day came into power -and .ound tue Council full 'of political opponents, and .lmrncdiotMy,»tno same session, the amending Bill .was put through.'...The present Council, although.fair enough to tho Govern r nient. took no friendly attitude towards.

the .legislation'of the present Government. Some members had shown for some measures—notably the land Bill and the Public Swrvico Bill—an attitude of abhorrent detestation.! It /was certainly something different from mere hostility. "What more ample,, evidence of the need for change was required ? • 1 Mr..,.|en!cinso.n: Ample evidence would be the -return of the present Government next year. The Council could not withstand that.

Proportional Representation. Mr. Bell said Mr. Sinolair had attached much weight to tho cost of fighting an election in the large electorates. In actual practice it was found that tho cost to candidates was less in largo electorates than in small, simply because the expenditure necessary really to have any effect in a large electorate was prohibitive, and the Tesult was that veTy money was spent. Canvassing was impossible, meetings- were practically impossible, but advertising was possible. This limited the possible avenues, of expenditure. Mr. Samuel: 'How are the electors to know the opinions of candidates, then? ■ Mr. Bell said ho was discussing ihe cost merely. One objection to proportional representation was, that under it no unknown man woulil have a chance, but an unknown man did not desorve to have a dunce. The report of the English Commission on PiMfeortional Representation liad declared <is their finding that it would have the effect of rendering ineffective party organisations, tlio exact opposite of what lion, gentlemen had said. The Commission had therefore recommended the svstom as suitable for the election of an Upper Chamber, but as it was believed that the party system was the best known means by which reforms could l>e introduced, thev did not recommend it for the popular House as it- would destrov the party system in the House where it was desirable that the party system should be retained. All the authorities on the subject were unanimous, however, in declaring thiat the system'of nomination by the Ministry of the day was entirely out of date. . ... A Mutual Understanding. He wouild ask the Council to pass tho second reading of the Bill. If this were agreed to he would 'have no great objection to the Bill going before a Special Committee. Above all things he wanted the Council to agree to the second reading of the Bill, and to go into Committee upon it in order that matters of.de--tail might be considered. He had . given an undertaking to the mover of tho amendment that the passing of the second reading would be token by the Government to mean do more than to affirm the need for chango in tho present method of nomination, and not necessarily to signify approval of the methods proposed by the Bill of making this change. On this understanding he asked members to vote for the second reading. The Hon., 1 01SAMTIEI,, asked,, leave •to withdraw his amendment/" He explained that the .undertaking which tho Minister had just mentioned had bean given to liim by the Minister after the amendment was moved. This proposition had; been submitted to members of the Coun-:' cil, and as a result of discussion oh it he asked leave to withdraw the motion now with a view of moving it .again at the nest stage of the Bill. Under these circumstances ho .would vote for tho second reading of the Bill. ..... The Hon. J. E. JENKINSON objected to the withdrawal of -the motion, and as the unanimous of the Coun*cil was necessary to permit Mr. Samuel to do it, the amendment was not withdrawn. The Division. The amendment was defeated by 21' votes to 12, and the second reading was carried on the voices. Following was the division list - .— - For the amendment (21). —Baillie, Barr, Bell,. Callan, Collins, Duthie, Earnshaw, George, Hardy, Johnston; Kelly, -Luke, Mills, Nikora, Ormond, O'Rorke, Paul, Samuel, Sinclair, Smith, Stevens. Against (12).— Anstey. Baldey, Beehan, 'Carncrass, Gilmer, Harris, Jenkinson, .Tones, Loughnan, Rigg, Thompson, Tucker. ' '

. Tho Hon/ H. D. BELL moved that Mr. Speaker do leave tho chair in order that the Bill should be considered in Committee. ■

The Hon. 0. SAMTJEL thereupon moved his amendment to this motion on tho same terms as previously. The amendment was agreed to on the voices. ■

A LABOUR BILL.

The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (tho Hon. H. D. Bell) to remedy a machinery defect in the existing law was passed through Committee,' reported with amendments, reaiLA-.third time. and. passed. ' On tho motion of the third reading, . The Hon. W. EARNSHAW _ said he to protest against "legislation 'whicli.'proposed to .establish two mandator!' bodies in connection with" our industrial laws. ', He believed it would bo found that the judge of the Arbitration .Court would determine that the Act could not ovpr-ride the basic principles of tho law. •'

The Hon. J. BAIiR thought that if a judge were to over-iide the law then tho sooner the Legislature over-rode the judgo -by -removing him the better. Both workers and employers wished to settle differences by conciliation, and this Act would' give them power to do so, and to inako their decision find and binding. The Hon. C. M. LUKE also spoke. The Council adjourfied at 5 p.m. until Wednesday nt 2.30 p.m.