ELECTIVE UPPER HOUSE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 304, 17 September 1920, Page 8

ELECTIVE UPPER HOUSE

THE ACT OF 1914

HOSTILE RESOLUTIONS PROPOSED

DEBATE IN THE COUNCIL

In the Legislative Council yesterday the Hon. J. B. Gow moved:—

That in the opinion of this Council it would be against the public interest to allow the Legislative Council Act, 1914, to be brought into operation, thereby making a drastic change in the Constitution of the Dominion at a time when there are many urgent political and social problems pressing for solution; and that the Government bo requested to take step.s to have legislation passed this session to give effect to this resolution.

The Legislative Council Act provides that when it conies into force the members of the Upper House shall bo elected upon a system of proportional repre : sentation. When the Act was passed in 1911 the Prime Minister (Mr. Massey) promised that Parliament should have an opportunity of reviewing it, and though for various -reawns the opportunity was delayed from time to time, it arrived with the introduction this session of the Legislative Council Amendment Bill, which deals with little more than tho machinery to be established for the carrying out of the intention of tho 1914 Act. The fact that Mr. Gow moved a resolution instead of an amendment to the Bill was due to the announcement of Sir Francis Bell that the Government would not move the third reading of any amendment contrary to the spirit of the Act.

"A Great Experiment." Mr. Gow said he supposed no one would claim that the present system of Government was perfect, but so far as could be seen no system had yet been disclosed that worked better. In the days when conditions throughout the world were normal, it would perhaps have been permissible to embark upon experimental legislation seeking to improve upon the present system of Government, but since the days of normal conditions great changes! had taken place. It had been thought inadvisable during the. war to givo effect to tho change proposed by tho Act, and that principle had been affirmed, by the National Government's action in postponing the operation of the measure. Sir William Hall-Jones: Only the conservative. clement objected to it. Mr.' Gow said he understood that it was quito the other way about. He behoved it had been a stipulation made by the Liberal Leader (Sir Joseph Ward) in the National Cabinet that the operation of the Act should bo postponed. He did not believe the day had yet arrived for saying that tho country was in such a, state of quiet that it was legitimate to embark on a great experiment. If there were two elected Chambers, each considering it had a mandate from the people, there might eventually be a clash that would end in the abolition of one Chamber; and he believed that whatever opinious might bo held as to the constitution of the Second Chamber it was generally admitted that such a Chamber should exist.

"A Leap in the Dark." , The Hon. AV. H. Triggs, in seconding tho motion, endorsed tho view that conditions to-day were abnormal. Even in this country there were elements of social and industrial unrest, and these mado it no. time for taking "a leap in the dark." His first objection to tho change was that it-meant a complete departure from the true function of a Second Chamber. The Upper House should act chieflv as a revising Chamber. In the discharge of this duty the Legislative Council of New Zealand had mado for itself an excellent record. TheLeader of tho Council particularly had done splendid work in improving Bills from tho Lower Chamber. Under the present system the Council was free from the necessity of constantly "keeping its ear to the ground" and going along with every passing gust of popular passion. »* ' ■ , The Hon. P. J. Nerheny supported the motion. He could not see h-jtv the Upper House could be a revising Chamber if the members of it had to go to tho people and givo election pledges in order to win votes. He thought that when there were vacancies in tho Upper House both Houses together should elect persons to fill them. "A Huge Joke." Sir William Hall-Jones said he would have liked to know who had "engineered" the motion, and who was engineering it through the Council. He was surnrised tn see such a motion moved by Mr. Gow, who know the policy of the Government, and he was also surprised that tho Minister in charge of the Bill (Sir Francis Bell) had not taken the motion as one of no-confidence. If it had .not been for the seriousness of the position ho would havo regarded the whole matter as a hugo joke. About twenty members of the Council would probably vote for the motion. Would the Government on such a voto abandon a policy proclaimed again and again? He had never known the Prime Minister to break his word. Was the Prime Minister going to throw away a plank of his policy on a vote of twenty members? Reference had been made to the changes going on in tho world. Those changes tended, in his view, to more democratic forms of Government, and he thought tho motion proposed a retrograde move. Ho looked on the Legislative Council Act as one of the mast advanced measures he had ever supported, and he would be very sorry to see it lost. He sympathised with the Leader of the Council, whose' heart he knew was in tho Bill; and he hoped that Sir Francis Bell would impress upon his colleagues tho fewness of those who voted for tho motion. The Hon. C. H. Izard moved an amendment expressing the opinion that it was against tho public interest to allow the Act to be brought into operation "in its present form." Mr. Izard said that he believed in election of. the Council, but not in election according to the conditions laid down by the Act. He thought that either this, session or next session a, scheme could be, and ought to be, evolved that would give satisfaction to both Houses. The Hon.<iM. Cohen seconded the amendment. "Give Peace in Our Time," Sir Francis Bell said he wished to mako it clear that it was in 1914, upon the passing of the Legislative Council Act, that Mr. Massey promised Parliament an opportunity of reconsidering the Act at a later stage. The promise was not consequent upon arrangements of the National Cabinet. No member of the Government had ever said that the Government was prepared to abandon the Act. What the Prime Minister said was that the Government was prepared to allow Parliament to express its opinion upon the details of the Act, and possibly on other matters. One of the matters, for example, that Mr. Massey had in mind at (he time of making the promise was his (Mr. Massey's) opinion that there should be a certain nominated clement sitting with the elected element in the Council. Sir William Hall-Jones had said ,that the motion might have been treated as one of no-confidence. Ho would remind Sir William Hall-Jones that the motion had been moved in accordance with his announcement that if members chose to oppose the intention of tlio Act by moving amendments to the Bill, he would not carry tho Bill on after an amendment had been inserted. Tie was absolutely opposed to the mo= lion. He had not changed bin mind in regard to the Act, and he read the motion as being a parnphrnsoof tho Litanical prayer, "Give peace in, our time, 0 Lord!"' • Responsibility for Delay. Ho would not be a party to legislation affecting the principle of tho Act of 1914, nor would lie remain a member of an Administration which made such legislation a Govenimont measure. The motion entailed no reflection upon the Government, for it was merely a motion made in accordance with tho invitation given to Parliament in 19H to express an opinion on the Act at a later stage. It was unfortunate that the opportunity for expressing opinions had been delayed till this year, but it was not tho fault of the present Government Tho