“Bill Of Rights In Itself Inadequate”

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30390, 14 March 1964, Page 14

“Bill Of Rights In Itself Inadequate”

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 13. A Bill of Rights could not be legallyentrenched under New Zealand’s present Parliamentary constitution because one Parliament could not bind its successor, Mr A. C. Brassington, of Christchurch, a vice-president of the Constitutional Society, told the Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Representatives today.

He was making special submissions in support of a written constitution. A petition by James Bell Donald and others calls for a written constitution and the re-establishment of a second chamber of Parliament.

A Bill of Rights was, in itself, no substitute for a bi-

cameral legislature and an accompanying written constitution which the society considered an urgent need for the future peace, order and good government of New Zealand, said Mr Brassington. “The proposed bill has the great merit of serving as a basis for educating those who are ignorant of our liberties, either through youth, or because they are new citizens in this country, or have lacked educational opportunities, or who have merely not needed to direct their attention to what they know by intuition is their birthright “The principles embodied in plain English in the bill will act as a measure by which the people of New Zealand may judge the actions, or the inactivity, of the Government

“The bill will tend to reinforce the legality of action taken by individuals or groups in defence of its principles. “It could in an extremity provide a legal basis for physical resistance to executive action which may be contrary to the elements of natural justice which the bill embodies,” said Mr Brassington.