PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 118, 5 October 1912, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1912. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. MILITARY PENSIONS. Replying to Mr. Luke, the Minister said that, in accordance with its promise in the Financial Statement, the Government was giving full consideratio* to the report of the Public Petitions Committee on petitions from military settlers. A Bill was now in print, with the object of dealing with the position of military pensions. THE CIVIL SERVICE. He said that he did not think that there should be promotions to higher positions without practical experience. The report of the Civil Service Commission showed that, for at least six years, there had been no political patronage in the service calling for reform. Where it did exist it was outside the civil service, and that was where it should be stopped. The Bill established an absolute autocracy. If the Commissioner's power were allowed to remain, it would wreck the whole scheme. He was opposed to the principle of the appointment of an autocracy, but as the House had, by a good majority, approved of the Bill, he did not think it right to refuse to pass it. He gave his assent to the Bill with very grave misgivings. Mr. Samuel said that in the past six years there had been very little to which even the most captious could take exception. He received the Bill with misgiving, and would not be surprised if evil resulted from its adoption. As, however, the House had adopted it he did not see that they could prevent its aim being carried out. The Council, under the. circumstances, would not be justified in opposing the measure. Mr. Beehan was speaking in opposition to the Bill when the Council adjourned. In the.Council, in the evening, Messrs. Beehan, Mills and McCardle continued the debate on the Public Service Bill. The debate was adjourned, and the Council rose. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The House met at 2.30 p.m. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM. Mr. Massey moved the motion of which he had previously given notice, to the effect that it is desirable that an alteration in the constitution of the Legislative Council shall be effected by the present Parliament; that the alteration be from appointment by the Governor to election by a direct vote at the polls of electors qualified to vote at the general election for members of the House; that the election be upon the proportional system, and, therefore, by large electoral divisions; that the number of elected members, other than Maoris, be 40, of whom 20 shall be elected at each general election for- the House of Representatives, every member to sit for two Parliaments; that an electoral division for the Council shall be made cotemiinious with the aggregate of a number of existing electorates for the House, and that provision be made for preserving to the House the exclusive control of all matters of finance, and also for cases where the Council and the House ultimately fail to arrive at any agreement on any proposed legislation. He stated that Sir Geo. Grey had always advocated an elective Upper House. This was one of the planks of their platform on which they won the elections. He believed that the reform would be brought about by them. He pointed out that a large number of members of the Council had voted tor the Bill introduced there, which showed that they affirmed the principle. His resolutions did not alter the present franchise. Some of the country's wisest and ablest men had expressed the opinion that the Council should be elective. The system which obtained now was absolutely wrong, from the point of view of Parliament and the people. They could not get good results. They were not wedded to the principle of each Island being an electorate. He believed that they would bave to divide the country into four electorates, returning 40 members. They heard a lot of the proportional system being complicated. It was nothing of the sort. sft was more simple than the present system, and if put into operation he was convinced that there would be fewer informal votes than at present. The system would do away with parish, pump politics and professional politicians. He hoped, when the time came, that some of the present members of the Council would be candidates and be elected. Provision would be siade for the election of two Maori members. The Council would not be able to initiate any legislation dealing with finance. If the Council met the House in conference on a matter, and no agreement was arrived at, the Governor would be asked to grant a dissolution. He believed that in time the system of proportional representation would apply to the Lower House. They had promised refoYm of the Upper House, and that would be put into effect before next election. He felt sure that the resolutions would be carried by a huge majority of the House.

Mr. Russell said that the carrying of the resolutions would bring about a huge revolution in .the government of the country. He moved, as an amendment, to omit all the <words after the word "that," and to insert the following words in lieu thereof, "In the opinion of the House it is desirable that the Government should state its proposals for electoral reform of the House of Representatives (as indicated on page 15 o( the Budget) prior to the discussion of the proposals for the alteration of the constitution of the Council, the two questions being inseparably connected." He held that the reform of the method of election of the Lower House should precede reform in the Council. The Opposition Party had for years fully recognised the necessity for reform of the Council, but the real question was: Was there a necessity for a second Chamber? Throughout the Dominion there was a large body of opinion against, its continuance. Even the Prime Minister regarded the Council as being chiefly a revisory body. He contended that if a proportional representation scheme had been in force during the last election a Liberal-Labor Government would have been on the Treasury Benches now. If that system were adopted there would be no need for a second chamber. The Prime Minister should say what he would do in the event of the country deciding in favor of proportional representation for both Chambers. Mr. Sidev said that he would vote for the resolutions as against the present svstom.

The House adjourned at 5.30 and resumed a t 7.30 p.m. Mr. Allen continued the debate on Mr. Massev's motion re the Council, and Mr. Russell's amendment. He contended that while Mr. "Russell's amendment was an indirect challenge to a policy measure of the Ciovernment it did not challenge tin Government's! principle. Tn his opinion. eve it me wh-i voW for the amendment voled tue -iroportional representation system for the Urper lTr.'.".r>. The Trime Minister Imd given ~;0 wpr.l iUi iiobre this I'driiameut

ended he would introduce a measure dealing with an alteration of the constitution of the Upper Housj. He did; not think the time had arrived for the abolition of the Second Chamber. It was not possible that the Upper House would surrender any of its privileges without a struggle. It 'was fighting 'on the principle of whether the Council was to be nominated or brought into closer touch with the people of the country. He said that the second ballot had to go, and in its place would be put a different measure, the contents of which he was not prepared to put before the House that evening.

Sir J. G. Ward said that he believed that one of the most fatal mistakes the House was going to make was to have both Houses elective by the people, on the same franchise. Even if one was elected on large electorates, in a few years the Council would become the dominant House. Large electorates would either play into the hands of the wealthy or into the. hands of the party with the best organisation. The man with a bit of money would get the best results. He thought that the system of election by the Government, as outlined in the ■Governor's Speech in February, would give better results. Nothing more revolutionary had ever been brought before the House than the election of the Second Chamber by proportional representation. Logically, tnere should be only one House under the proportional system. Mr. Fisher quoted figures to show that at the last Victorian Senate election Labor men swept the whole 18 seats, showing that the seats were not won by the wealthy class. As to the size of electorates, larger ones would eliminate the parish-pump clement. Mr. I'ayne said that the only true system of election was to pool all votes and allow each party to be represented by the percentage of support it received. Mr. Hanan considered that the purposes of democracy would be defeated if another Chamber were so constituted as to be able to block the measures of the Lower House.

Mr. Hanan objected to both Houses being elective on the same franchise. Mr. Robertson said that if the people had one purely representative House, on a proportional system, there would be no need for a Second Chamber. Mr. Robertson, continuing, said that his party would support a resolution for proportional representation, a principle they advocated. Mr. Ell considered that it was a dangerous position to constitute a Second Chamber which would regard itself as equally powerful with the representative Chamber. Mr. Atmore said that he oould not support a law which favored a rich man to the disadvantage of the poorer class Mr. Witty contended that it was the Government's duty to give a lead to the House, instead of asking for the opinion of the House. Mr. Veitch contended that an elective Upper House would not work out satisfactorily. An Upper House in accord with the House of Representatives would be a superfluity. He approved of proportional representation, and would do his best to see it applied to the House.

After midnight the Prime Minister replied. He said that there was scarcely anything to say, as nearly every member of the House had spoken in favor of the proposed system of election of the 'Upper House, and the Government was not on a fishing expedition. It had already introduced a Bill in the Legislative Council. The proposals in the resolutions were liberal, progressive and democratic, and those who voted against them were neither Liberal, progressive nor democratic.

Mr. Kussell's amendment was negatived, and Mr. Massey's resolutions were carried, after three clauses had been challenged. The House rose at 12.85 a.m.