STATEMENTS' REFUTED

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2214, 29 July 1914, Page 4

STATEMENTS' REFUTED

« —— ■ THE NEW COUNCILLORS WHY THEY WERE APPOINTED HON. H.' D. BELL EXPLAINS. The Hon. H. D. Bell took occasion, in tho Legislative Council yesterday, to refute tho statements. made during tho past,few weeks that there was no immediate necessity for the Government to appoint new Councillors. The Government, said Mr. Bell, had n6 reason, nor had the members of- tho Council, .to regret the strength that had been added to the Council by the appointment of tho hon. . gentlemen concerned. He desired to say that it was essential that a. considerable 1 number of honourable gentlemen should be summoned. Ou July 1 of the present session the Council consisted of seven life members, and 21 members appointed for seven years, making a total of 28 members, including the. Speaker. Further, it was known that neither Sir Wm. Millar nor the Hon, Mr. Duncan would be able to attend, at all events for a large part of tho session, so the working number of tho Council would have been reduced to 25. Even of that number there was no reason to anticipate that they would be constantly present. There was much important work to he done in the Council, and the hon. members would agree that a Council of 25 members was not sufficient, and tho Government would have failed in their duty had they not appointed further members. The number summoned was eleven It had been said that the number exceeded what was essential. Hon. members would remember'that the Government had not only a fight l but a duty to'exerciso in calling a sufficient number to the Council to carry any measure confirmed by resolution of the House. ' ', How the Voting Went. Proceeding. to the voting strength, Mr. Bell said that of the seven life members, only one (the Hon. Sir George M'Lean) supported election by large electorates. Excluding Mr. Speaker again, there was therefore a majority of; five to one against the Bill among tho lifo members. Of tho. twenty-one members holding appointment for seven years who remained in tho Council on July 1, tho.following members had supported election in large electorates: — Messrs. Bell, Earnshaw, Hall-Jones,' Hardy, Mills, Nikora, Paul, and Wigram—a total of eight members.. Those who had consistently opposed that principle were: Messrs. Baldey, Bcehan, 'Barry Carnoross, Duncan,' George, Harris, Jones, Parata, and Thompson—a total' of ten members. The remaining threo were: —Messrs. Duthie, Louisson, and O'Rorke. Of. the three last-named, Sir Maurice O'Rorke moved a motion in favour of much smaller electorates, and Mr. Duthie had expressed his dissent. The Government could not rely upon the support of the three'lastnamed gentlemen.. . Omitting those three, tho numbers were therefore: For the Bill—one ■, life member and,- eight holding appointment for seven years; against the Bill—five life members (six with Mr. Speaker), and ten holding appointment for seven years; leaving the Govornment in an assured minority of six. If the three members whose votes were doubtful voted against the Government on.; any amendment, the Government would have been in a minority of nine. "' .';'"■• ;■■''. The Appointments Necessary. s }• It would be seen, therefore/ that the number- of new-appointments-necessary to erisuro the passing of a measure in the Council was not less. than ten or eleven. Eleven had \actualiy been appointed, since-Jidy.l,: ; ahd one of these (the Hon.-Mr. Samuel)'did not support tho Bill. "Tho'misrepresentations which have,; been made broadcast upon this subject,": he'added, ;"are founded upon a matter which is familiar enough to tho Council. . Some of tie' pronounced opponents to tho.measure.have voted for the second-reading as a declaration .only, of their support of tho principle of,a change.from nomination to. election';<. and some honourable gentlemen have gone even further, and voted in favour of election by the peoplo as against secondary election, but have refused and-still refuse to agree to election upon a : systom of proportional representation. It is quite well known in the Council that the hon. gentlemen whose names I havo read are definitely opposed to the details of the Bill which the. Govornment has declared to bo its policy, and that in Committee on the Bill, if ho now members had been summoned after July 1, the Government would have been in a minority of al-. ways six, and possibly nine, on issues which aro deemed of vital importance to the Government policy". •