UPPER HOUSE.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 October 1920, Page 5

UPPER HOUSE.

THE ELECTIVE PRINCIPLE, POSTPONING TEEj CHANGE* By TeleßMpb.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In moving the second reading of the Legislative Council Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-night, the Prime Minister explained the reasons ■ why the Act was not being brought' into" operation now. It was understood I that many members desjred an amend- i ment of the Act on the Statute Book, j and as there was not time to consider ! these this session, the Government' thought it advisable to postpone the operation of the Act. The only important amendments proposed related to an amendment of boundaries, and the number of members in electorate* for the, Upper House. Mr. T. M, Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said there had been much discussion on the question of whether another Chamber was necessary or not He thought if an opportunity was given this Chamber to disenss the matter, it would be found there would be a plain statement of views on the point. He personally was prepared to vote for ft Bill for the election of the Lower House on a system of proportional representation, but be was not, prepared at present to say what shape the reform of the Upper House should take. He! hoped the matter would be dealt with definitely and finally next session. The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) said evidently the Prime Minister realised that a nominated Upper House had some advantages, and there were difficulties in the way of making it wholly an elective Chamber. He could see no justification for holding over the operation of the present Act providing for an elective Upper House. The people supported the Government at the elections believing it would reform the other place, and that reform should be brought about. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) said it appeared as if the Government was endeavoring to side-step the issue when the moment Was due for the elective principle for the Council to come into operation. Labor's desire was to see a truly democratic form of Parliament, representing all sections of the people according to. their strength. The Upper House, if continued, should be elective by proportional representation, but his idea was that it should be wiped out. Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) congratulated the Government on the proposal to postpone the meaaare, and hoped it would continue to be postponed indefinitely. An elective Upper House would result in a duplication of the Lower House, and thus it* usefulness as a revising Chamber would he lost in party bias. Under the present system the members of the other place w;ere free from the disturbing influences of election possibilities and passion. Proportional representation would be unworkable in country districts. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) combatted the statement that proportional representation would be unworkable in the country, pointing out that in Australia the system was worked with whole States as electorates for the Senate. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said it was wrong to continue putting the Council reform off, as people would become suspicious of Parliamentary methods. Mr. jl. E. Holland (Buller) opposed the Bill, as beiag a breach of faith with the people. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) supported the Legislative Council being elected on a basis of proportional representation, The Reform Party was at present benefiting by a defect in the electoral system, but most" surely the pendulum will BWing back, when the Labor Party would_ profit by the same defect. Therefore, it was jußt as much in the interest of the Reform Party as the Labor Party thai proportional representation I should be the electoral system adopted by New Zealand. The question that the Bill be read a_ second time was then put, and on a division the motion was agreed to by 1 36 votes to 10. The House then went into committee on the Bill. Clause 3, postponing the date of th'e coming into operation of the Bill, was challenged by the Labor Party, and on a division was agreed to by 36 votes to 10. The Bill was then reported from committee without amendment, read a third time, and passed. Following is the division list on the second reading:— For (36): Atmore, Bitchener, Bollard, Coates, J. S. Dickson, Field, Glenn, A. Hamilton, J. Hamilton, Harris, Hawken, Herrles, Hockley, Hudson. Hunter, Isitt, Jones, Lee, Luke, McLsod, McNicol, iMander, Massey, Masters, Nash, Nobworthy, Parr, Pomare, Potter, Powdrell, Seed, T. K. H. Rhodes, Sykes, Wilford, Wright. Against (16): Bartram, Edie, Fraser, Holland. Horn, Howard, Kelletf, Mc. Combs, Mitchell, Parry, Poland, Savage, Sidey,, Statham, Sullivan, Witty..