日本ニュ ージーラ ン ド学会誌 第 24 巻

(研究報告)

The Upper Chamber in

Nobuaki Suyama Teikyo Heisei University

Introduction New Zealand's has only one legislative house, thereby making it unicameral. To form a government, the main political parties aim to win a majority of seats in Parliament alone or in coalition with the others in regularly held elections because is accountable to Parliament. The fact remains that New Zealand had an almost century-long bicameral legislative history with both the and the functioning between 1853 and 1950. The Legislative Council was the first of the country, established in 1941. New Zealand shed its in 1950 by abolishing the appointive upper chamber. Worldwide, is almost as common as bicameralism. However, economically advanced major countries are with no exception bicameral, as shown in Table t . All members of the nine lower houses and five upper houses (, , , , and the ) are popularly elected. All Canadian senators are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime M inister1. The vast size of over 700 members being its key feature, the evolutionarily constituted British upper chamber is a hodgepodge of clergypersons, life peers, and hereditary peers. In democracies, the unelected members are placed on a weak footing to override the decisions made in the popularly elected house.

Table t Two Legislative Houses in Major Countries Australia House of Commons Senate France National Assembly Senate Bundestag Bundesrat Italy Chamber of Deputies Senate Japan House of Representatives House of Council The House of Commons The United States House of Representatives Senate

The German Bundesrat is unique in that it is not really made of individual politicians as such. The total voting numbers of 69 are apportioned to t 6 Bundeslander on the basis of their relative

-16- population sizes. Large Bundeslander such as and North Rhine Westphalia have six while small ones such as Bremen and Saarland have three. These weighed voting rights are exercised by each Bundeslander government. It is normally the head minister or one of the cabinet ministers that physically shows up in the Bundesrat and casts block votes of designated numbers. Though not elected, the Bundesrat effectively serves to the Bundeslander's interests. In the case of Russia, Federation Council members are chosen by the regional elites of each unit constituting the Federation2. It is not as effective as the Bundesrat in providing regional voices a place in the central arena. This article aims to discuss the now defunct Legislative Council of New Zealand. Why was it that this upper chamber was installed in the first place? Then, why did New Zealand do away with its upper house, an institution that is still dominant in the various countries? Finally, is there any justifiable reason for restoring it back now?

Unicameralism into Bicameralism Whereas unicameralism is more the norm in the world at large3, more than half of liberal democracies are bicameral4. Among 35 0ECD countries, for example, 16 are unicameral. Although unicameralism and bicameralism are not lopsided in number, all large powers are bicameral. The largest unicameral countries in population are Turkey (circa 80 million) and Korea (circa 50 million)5. , and changed their erstwhile unicameralism into bicameralism. The Spanish Senate existed for 86 years from 1837 to t923. In 1923, the dictator, General M iguel Primo do Rivera quashed it and it was in the peaceful transition to democracy following the death of another dictator, General Francisco Franco in 1975 that Spain revived the Senate in 1977. The present M exican Senate dates back to t874. Given its federal structure, it is hard to imagine a unicameral M exico. Poland's Senate has a long tradition and its national history can be traced back over 500 years. In fact, Poland had one of the earliest bicameral legislative bodies in Europe. However, the Polish state itself was dismembered by its powerful neighbours Prussia, , and Russia in 1795. In the newly established Poland after , the Senate was re-established although this time its operation was forced into recess by the Nazis invading the country in 1939. After World War II, the Senate was abolished officially by the Communist regime in 1946. In 1989, towards the end of Communist rule, the Senate was revived to put Poland back into bicameralism. Talking of their old historical episodes, even France and Germany toyed with unicameralism in some short periods of time. During the Second Republic (1848-1851), France was briefly unicameral. Hitler came to power in 1933 by a democratic means and abolished the Relchstrat6 while ending the as a whole. The current Bundesrat was a creature of the Federal Republic of Germany on the principle of after World War II7. The pros and cons of unicameralism are easily pointed out as follows:

PROS: Expenditure cut in human resources and elections No delay caused by the disagreements and discrepancies between the two houses

-17- The absence of a docile (1. e redundant) or unruly (1.e dangerous) second chamber

CONS: No safeguards for profound rethinking of legislation The lack of insurance when a first chamber is in a state of disarray

Table2 Unicameral Polities among 35 OECD Countries Country Year of Conversion Country Year of Conversion Denmark 1953 Latvia ever Estonia 1940 ever ever New Zealand 1951 1935 2009 Hungary 1945 Portugal 1974 Iceland 1991 Slovakia ever Israel ever 1970 Korea, Republic of 1961 Turkey 1980

Bicameralism into Unicameralism In the other direction, Greece, now unicameral, was bicameral unfil l935. The last came to an end with the demise of the Second Hellenic Republic. The case of Estonia needs a detailed explanation due to its unsteady national identities. 0nce upon a time, Estonia was a Swedish colony, then gradually taken into the Russian sphere. It was in 1918 that they declared independence, taking advantage of the political instability during the Russian proletariat revolution. They came to have their own parliament in 1919. In 1938, this national assembly was divided into two chambers: the Chamber of Deputies and thLe National Council. Both chambers were disbanded due to Estonia's annexation into the in 1940. While Estonia constituted a republic of thLe Soviet Union, rigged elections were held only for the unicameral Supreme Soviet. In the year after regaining its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Estonia held a genuine election for thLeir unicameral Parliament after a long hiatus. Hungary provides another example. 0n a nominally equal standing Hungary and Austria constituted the Hapsburg Empire until World War 1. After the

First World War, Hungary dissolved its political union withL Austria. Hungary had its own upper chamber, the House of Magnates, from 1867 to t918 in the two-nation, Austro-Hungarian Empire and again from 1927 to t945 as Kingdom of Hungary. Throughout the post-war period, Republic of Hungary has remained unicameral.

In contrast to the above-mentioned rathLer unstable polities, New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden are materialistically affluent, well-established democracies8. These countries are all constitutional monarchies, in which the royal head of thLe state plays only a ceremonial role. It is notable that thLey all adopted unicameralism by a peaceful means at a relatively early state after the Second World War. The other Nordic countries which can be placed in this group are Iceland and Norway although they fumed unicameral rather late9.

-18- South Korea's example is rather shambolic with respect of its upper chamber. It underwent the wild April revolution in April 1960 and as a result radically changed its political system established in the first republic. The eight-month-long second republic (1960-1961) worked under a . This was the only period in which South Korea had a cabinet system instead of a . The bicameral legislature was set up with the House of Commons as a lower house and the Senate as an upper house. The upper chamber did not live survive the end of thLe second republic. Portugal's abolition of the upper chamber has a lot to do with its political revolution in 1974. A bloodless, left-wing military coup d'etat known as the Carnation Revolution ended a 48-year-long dictatorial regime. Considered to be a reactionary institution, in which vested societal interested were harboured, the Senate was put away with some other vestiges. Portugal lost many long-standing colonies in Africa in the following year, sending so many white Portuguese settlers back to Portugal. The Portuguese Senate became a legacy of the past in such a great moment of change. Turkey, which sits on the doorstep of Europe, began its modem legislative history as unicameral in 1920. In the post-war era, a multi-party system overtook a single-party rule. Then, bicameralism was established in the 1961 Constitution with the National Assembly as a lower house and the Senate as an upper house. A nearly 20-year-old bicameralism was replaced with the present unicameral Grand National Assembly in 1980. Turkey's changes have also been linked with its political turmoil and sudden upheavals, rather than as the product of deep, sound deliberation. The right-left axis of the political ideology has little to do with unicameralism. For example, the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada has been a staunch advocate for abolishing the Senate. Their rationale behind their opposition is that the Senate is an utterly undemocratic institution whose appointed members can stay in their seats until 75 years of age1o. The longest surviving upper chamber among the Canadian provinces was abolished by the Union Nlat1onale Quebec government in 1968. It was a party located right of centre. The reason for their antagonism to the legislative council was the hefty costs of maintaining lt. Trying to be fiscally humble, the right-wing government did away with it given that all the othLer provinces were already unicameral.

The New Zealand Legislative Council Captain William Hobson became the first Governor of the colony of New Zealand in May 1841. Immediately, a supporting legislative council was established as the only legislature. M embers of the Legislative Council were to be appointed by the governor for life11. Its third Governor appointed the first members to the country's upper chamber in 1853. The appointees came from three broad categories: (1) noblemen, (2) those with previous political experiences, and (3) government officials. There was no upper limit in the number of members appointed but in 1855 it was understood to be t5, increased to 20 in 1861, then in the following year the ceiling was removed completely. Along with the popularly elected members of the House of Representatives, Premier Henry Sewe11 presided over New Zealand's first responsible government in 185612. Richard M ulgan

-1g- writes

The Westminster system of 、responsible、 government had been established. Party government subsequently evolved, as elsewhere, with the extension of the voting franchise to all adults, male and female, in 189313.

The government was responsible to the House of Representatives, not to the Legislative Council although some Cabinet ministers were Councillors. The convention was established that appointments to the Legislative Council were made on the recommendation of the Premier. The Legislative Council was intended to act as a revising second chamber, scrutinising and amending bills which had been passed by the House of Representatives. It could not initiate bills in its own right. It was prohibited from amending money bills, z.e.1egislation relating to revenue and expenditure. Even in its subordinate relationship to the House of Representatives, no bills would bear fruits to become laws without the consent of the Legislative Council. The Premier often encountered obstacles in carrying out his work by an obtrusive Legislative Council appointed by his predecessors. The premier tended to stack the Legislative Council with his faithful members before leaving office. Thus, in 1891, Councillors' life membership was replaced by a seven-year term by the first Liberal Party government of . To the dismay of many, Ba1lance's immediately preceding Premier nominated himself to the Governor to be appointed a Legislative . He was even appointed of the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council was less representative of the New Zealand public than the House of Representatives. Appointees were wealthier and more sedate because they tended to be prominent figures having accomplished something significant in life. Fewer women served as Councillors than Members of Parliament simply because women were not eligible to be appointed for the Legislative Council unfil l941. Only five women were appointed to the Legislative Council till its ending. The first Labour government headed by M ichael Joseph Savage appointed the very first two women. The other three women were among the Councillors appointed by the first National

Party government with Prime Minister Sidney Holland for the very purpose of abolishing thLe upper chamber, which will shortly be explained in depth. The indigenous Maori were relatively better represented than the poor Pakeha and women. The first two M aori Councillors were appointed as early as l 872. The convention was established that at least one Maori be a Councillor. A number of proposals were made that the Legislative Council be elected, not appointed, to make it more democratic and representational. At the earliest, this idea was flowing with the fourth Governor Thomas Gore Browne in the 19850s but no strong action was taken to elect Councillors. In 1914, the Liberal Party proposed to elect Councillors in proportional representation for the term of six years when Reformers under Prime M inister were in government. However, this was never put into practice mainly because of the start of World War 1. However, even after the war, the Reform government did not move swiftly to alter their cumbersome and troublesome upper chamber. The Liberal proposal did not die away but it persisted in the interwar period.

-20 Then, it was Holland that really took the initiative to abolish the Legislative Council14. By the middle of the 20th century, the Legislative Council had long since stopped being an effective second house reviewing bills passed by the House of Representatives. WhLen he was in opposition, Holland introduced a private member's bill to abolish the upper chamber in 1947. However, New Zealand was not allowed to amend the 1852 Constitution Act, which was an act of the United Kingdom without New Zealand adopting the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The did so by passing the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1947. This means that by then Labour government with Prime M inister was ready to abolish the Legislative Council. In so doing, Labour lost an election to National in 1949. In 1950, Holland's National Government passed the Legislative Council Abolition Act first in the House of Representatives. However, the Councillors resented losing their vested interests because they would be forced to give up their lucrative, restful, and prestigious jobs instantly upon abolition To sweeten the pill, the government introduced the attractive pension plan for the retiring Councillors. In addition, Holland appointed 20 new members as the suicide squad because he had to outnumber those who remained strongly opposed to the abolition of the second chamber. The Legislative Council was abolished once and for all en the New Year's Day of 1951.

Conclusions The age-old adage expressed by a French revolutionary thinker Emmanuel. Joseph Sieyes during the French revolution rings constantly resonant: “If a Second Chamber dissents from the First, it is mischievous; if it agrees it is superfluous”15. His native country France remains bicameral although the second chamber is rather toothless. The Legislative Council of New Zealand was abolished in 1951, but physically the Legislative Council Chamber is still used for the made by the Governor-General because the Sovereign may not enter the elected House. Holland National government abolished the upper chamber but the idea on an upper house does not run along party lines. , a National politician, who got promoted to prime minister in the early 1970s, did not particularly like thLe abolition as a cabinet minister because he thought bicameralism a better institutional arrangement instead of rushing a bill quickly through one elected housel6. Prime M inister (National), was also in favour of an elected upper chamber restored to Parliament Housel7. On the other hand, many New Zealanders never regret the decision to abolish the second chamber. Prime M inister Geoffrey Palmer (Labour) favoured the deliberative and thought-involving legislative process, however, and argued that New Zealand, a relatively small and homogeneous country, would not need a second chamber to be recreated18. The late Alan Robinson, an eminent political scientist, was satisfied with unicameralism in New Zealand19. Parliamentary studied the need for a second chamber on various occasions (1952, 1961,1964, and 1972) but it did not come away with any practical recommendations for its revival even in an elected form20. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System concluded no need for the upper chamber in New Zealand in 198621. It is unlikely that New Zealand will find the second chamber useful in the21St century.

-21 Instead of restoring a second chamber, New Zealander embarked on a new experiment of a new electoral system of mixed member proportional (MMP) in 1993 by parting with the first-past-the-post system seeming implanted in the Commonwealth country22. A formerly solid two-party system was transformed into a multi-party system, in which several parties come to make a coalition to form government23. What is noteworthy is that the abolition of the Legislative Council in 1951 and the introduction of MMP in 1993 are both the consequence of New Zealand's search for a better system of representational democracy. Denmark and Sweden followed suit by becoming unicameral. These countries did not choose unicameralism as though opting for totalitarianism but because their citizens judged the upper chamber redundant and useless. They are also very unlikely to reinstate a second chamber at the centre of the national institution.

Notes 1 The Wester Provinces pushed a Triple-E (Equal, Elected, and Effective) Senate to have a greater say in the central political institutions. The province of Alberta held an election for its senator in 1989. Prime M inister Brian Mulroney did not ignore the result and recommended the successful candidate Stanley Waters to the Governor-General. Thus, Waters became the very first elected Canadian Senator. 0n the other hand, two Liberal Prime M inisters: Jean Chretien and Paul M artin withheld the nomination of the elected in Alberta to the Governor-General. Prime M inister Stephen Harper later nominated as many as elected Albertan Senators to the Governor-General. 2 The Russian Federation was unicameral unfil l 993, when this Federation Council was established during Boris Yeltsin's presidency. 3 The possible explanation is that many newly created countries find unicameralism simpler and more cost-effective. 4 For the Japanese literature on the theme, see Kazumi Fujimoto, “The Unicameral Legislature in the World _ (1)Preliminary Study'', Senshu Hogaku Ronshu (The J'iourna1 of La、,v and Pc加zcal Sczence) Senshu University, No lO7, Dec 2009, pp.123-161; and Kazumi Fujimoto, J'ozn haishi・ n11nselgikai kara zc zz sezgz az e o fa a , Shiga sha, 2012. 5 Incidentally, the world's largest country People's Republic of China is unicameral while the second largest country is bicameral. This is due to the fact that India is a federal country thus, needing intrastate federalism in its upper house. 6 The other legislative body was the Rezchstag during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933). The Relchsrat represented the constituent states of the federal republic as the members were appointed by those subnational governments. 7 In the German Empire (1871-1918), the Bundesrat also functioned as a state-representing upper chamber. 8 For a good survey on various cases, see Louis M assicotte, “Legislative Unicameralism: A Global Survey and a Few Case Studies”, in Nicholas D. J. Baldwin and Donald Shell(eds), Second Chambers, Frank Cass, London, 2005, pp.151-170. 9 Incidentally, Iceland is unique in that it is a republic. 10 Before this mandatory retirement age of 75 was introduced in 1965, Canadian Senators had been appointed for life. The record of the oldest serving Senator is held by Georges-Casimir Dessau11es from Quebec. He died a Senator at the age of 102 years in 1930. 11 For details, W.K. Jackson, The New Zealand Legislatzve Council.- A Study of the Establishment, Failure andAbo加zon of an Upper House, Dunedin, Press, 1972. 12 New Zealand was a federation of six (later ten in its largest number) provinces between 1853 and 1876. Thus, besides the two houses at the national level, in the early stage of New Zealand history each province's elected legislative council was in charge of enacting laws on local matters. A superintendent, not a member of the legislative council, was directly elected by male property holders. Those provinces were Auckland, New Plymouth, , Nelson, Canterbury, and Otago. 13 Richard Mulgan, Pc加ics In No、,v Zealand, 3「d ed., updated by Peter Aimer, Auckland University Press, p 62. New Zealand is the first country that realized women in 1893. 14 For the Japanese literature, see Kazumi Fujimoto, “The Unicameralism in the World (II) The Abolition of an Upper House in the New Zealand Legislative Council 一”, The Shakalkagaku-Nempo (The Annua1

-22- Bulietznof Socza1 Science) , Senshu University, No 44, Mar 2010, pp.163 -196. 15 See Lord Campion, “Second Chambers in Theory and Practice”, Parliamentary Affazrs, Vo1.VII, Issue 1, 1953, pp.17-32. 16 John Marshall, “Introduction”, in John Marshall(ed), The Ret(erm of Parlzament ・ Contributions by Alan Robinson and papers presented In his memory concermng the New Zealand Parliament, New Zealand Institute of Public Administration, Wellington, 1978, p.12. 17 Keith Jackson, “The Abolition of the New Zealand Upper House of Parliament”, in Lawrence D. Longley

- ) and David M _ Olson(eds_ ), 「we Into One. The 1olitics and Processes of National Legislative Cameral Change, Westview Press, Boulder, 1991, pp 68-72. 18 See Geoffrey Palmer, Unbridled Power .・ An Interpr、etatzon of New Zealand s Consti加t1on and (Jovernment Oxford University Press, Wellington, 1979. 19 A.D. Robinson, “A Second Chamber”, in Marshall(ed ), op.clt., p.122. 20 “A Second Chamber”, in L Cleveland and A.D. Robinson(eds), Readings In New Zealand Government,

Reed Education, Wellington, 1972, pp _ 141-147. 21 M assicotte, op.czt., p.158. 22 See Jonathan Boston, “Institutional Change in a Small Democracy: New Zealand's Experience of Electoral Reform”, in F. Leslie Seidle and David C. Docherty(eds ), Ret(ormzng Parliamentary Democracy, McGi11-Queen's University Press, Montreal and Kingston, 2003, pp 25-55. 23 For the comparison with the case of , see Nobuaki Suyama, “Comparative Study of the Politics of Government Formation between New Zealand and Scotland”, The Journal of New Zealand Studies In Japan, No 21, Mar 2015, pp.15-27.

『ニュージーラ ンドの上院』

陶山宣明 帝京平成大学現代ラ イ フ学部

世界の主要先進国はほぼどの国も二院制だが、ニュージーラ ン ドは一 院制である。ニュー ジーラ ン ド議会は二院制で始まったのに、シ ドニー ・ ホラ ン ド国民党政府が 1951 年に上院 を廃止した。 上院は首相によって選ばれていたため、 ご都合主義がはびこ り、 政権の座に ある政党に功績があっ て、 政府法案に波風 を立て そ う にない政治家 を選ぶ傾向が強ま っ て いた。 最初に想定されていた、 下院から上がってきた法案に長く 培った専門を駆使して、 建設的な修正を加える機能をとても果たさなく なっていた。 政党政治が根付いていなかっ た頃には、 上院議員が本来の役割を果たせる可能性も高かったはずであるが、 締め付けの きつい政党が政治の中心に居座わるよ うになると、 上院議員も、 下院議員と同様に、 政党 で決めたことに背く のは命取りである。 一度任命されたら終身安泰だった頃はと もかく と して、 7 年経てばポス ト を離れるようになってからは、 再び同じ政党の首相に任命 しても ら うためには、 自分の所属政党に逆ら う行為は賢く ない。 むしろ何も積極的なことはせず に、 自 ら の政党が出す政府法案が無事通 る こ と を良き に計 ら う のが安全な策で ある。 7 年 後に違 う 政党が政権にある場合、 自分の政党が政権復帰す るのを待つ必要がある。 いずれ にせよ、 そう した上院の価値を否定して上院は廃止されたが、 最近では上院を復活するか あちこ ちで話し合いの場が持たれている。 しかし、 21 世紀に上院が復帰して、 ニュージー ラ ン ドが二院制に戻る可能性は極めて小 さい。

-23