The Press MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1962. The Session

Press, Volume CI, Issue 30007, 17 December 1962, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1962. The Session

The length of the 1962 ses-

sion of Parliament was not its only unusual feature. The session was broken by two recesses, one of a week in July, the other from September 7 to October 9. The first recess allowed the House to catch up with committee work; during the longer recess the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were away from New Zealand on business chiefly concerned with the European Economic Community. However, neither recess would have been really necessary had the legislative programme been kept up to the faster timetable that has become possible under the new Standing Orders. For instance, the Sale of Liquor Bill in charge of the Minister of Justice (who led the House during a few sittings while the Prime Minister was away) could have been taken by the House in September instead of a month later.

At the beginning of the session the House adopted comprehensive reforms in procedure recommended by a Select Committee on Standing Orders. The first noticeable effect of these reforms was the shortening to six sitting days of the Address-in-Reply debate, which previously had occupied three weeks to the exclusion of virtually all other business. The time spent on tlie Budget debate was similarly reduced. Unaccustomed to the new procedure, Ministers could perhaps be excused for not ensuring that the House had sufficient legislative business to keep it fully occupied in the first half of the session. The new procedure has not merely shortened members’ speaking time. A new question-and-oral-answer system modelled on House of Commons procedure has been introduced; also, private members have been enabled twice a week to initiate, on notice of motion, debates on topical

matters limited to six fiveminute speeches. The new “ streamlined ” procedure has not satisfied everyone; but, by and large, it has given a more purposeful appearance to the conduct of Parliament’s business without infringing the traditional rights of minorities and private members. The Prime Minister, as Leader of the House, is entitled to much credit for the smooth working of the new procedure. Sometimes under considerable strain and provocation, Mr Holyoake has been a most tolerant controller of proceedings. Two other Ministers who have come through the session with enhanced prestige are the Minister of Justice (Mr Hanan) and the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand). Mr Hanan handled several Maori measures and a massive and comprehensive consolidation of liquor licensing law with the skill to which the country has become accustomed from him. Mr Shand’s task in piloting through the House two strenuously-contested bills was not made lighter by the personal attacks directed at him both inside and outside Parliament.

The House completed a heavy legislative programme of 165 bills during the session. Although most were routine measures which improved or clarified the law, some were important and one—the Ombudsman Bill—was historic. There must be disappointment about two bills that were not proceeded with. It was expected that the session would see the longawaited amendments to the Indecent Publications Act. This legislation, designed to relieve booksellers of the onus of definition, has been held over to next session. The bill to set up a Fuel and Power Ministry also had to be deferred. This might have been avoided had the legislation, of a kind new to New Zealand, been prepared in time to secure the co-operation of all the interests vitally concerned.