LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 19 September 1913, Page 5

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL.

DISCUSSED BY THE LORDS. (By Association.) WELLINGTON, La& Night.' The debate on . the Legislative Council Bill- .was tin the (Journal Jhis afte?nc&fi Hfeh;' Q, "Samuel,\ who reviewed the circumstances which had led to th® ; BUl:.being referred to a Select Com- ( infttee ' and ' evidence by 1 ;; them; ; This evident had •"< :to shift his opinion from the . " conyictiom that a nominative system was the best. He was ndiw' satisfied that the' ©ouncil did not. possess the confidence of the country. He felt that something must be done, or else worse might happen. Either the Council might be abolished, or, worse still, the Government Bill might be passed. The Committee could not see its way to support the Government proposal, nor that of the Hon. J. Sindair. A Bill was finally agreed upon that provided that vacancies in the Council be filled as they occur by ele&ioh by members of both Hotuses. The Bill was lately based on a measure formerly introduced by Sir Frederick Whittaker. ,He explained the provisions of the Bill, bat said he would., not set it against the Government BUI. The Minister was entitled, to a clear-cut division on his Bill, but If it was defeated he . (Mr Samuel) would endeavour to put the measure through the Council, A test division coqlflbo taken on clause .9 of tbQ tttVernraeni Bill, If 't^^scamSd; could only pr4y that the Council would be speedily abolished. The Itoin. J. Rigg continued the debate. He recommendations ' of th% committee were ridiculous; arid'' calculated to destroy the independence of every man s in the Council. Anyone makinghimself objectionable, for the sake of principle, to his fellow members, would have no chance of election. • The oprincipal objection to . the proposal < wag /tiutfs Labour ootilcl * not get adequate representation, on j the Council' for the present' ; o6ijncil- /; lors were not going to vote out any of the present members to let. Labour/, mien in. He would vote against the " Government Bill and the Committee's proposal. . , • '»■ ~The Hon Mr George condemned the proposal of the committee as.t ending '■ to create a close corporation, giving an undue advantage to the sitting members. He favoured an elective Council, but on a property qualification. ' Unless" 'Ehis was made the; basis of the franchise!, he would not support the Government Bill. The Hon. John, Duthie said he was not in a happy position, as he wis satisfied that no Council could perform its duties properly unless it was absolutely judicial. That condition could not be arrived at by election; but if it was the ; will of-the country ; to have an elective Council, it was the duty of the Government to appoint, if necessary, a sufficient number of new Councillors to bring the Council into harmony with the will of the country. The Hon W. Earnshaw contended that there was a clear, mandate of the people to set up an elective Council. { Perhaps the Government Bill did not quite express the public ideal, but it was at least a step in the direction of the reform the people wanted. / The debate was adjourned on the motion of the Hon. Mr Anstey, and the Council rasfiuat 9.50 p.m ; .