Upper House Would Be "Danger To Democracy”

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30390, 14 March 1964, Page 15

Upper House Would Be "Danger To Democracy”

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 13. An Upper House as envisaged by the Constitutional Society would be “more of a danger to democracy in this country than a safeguard,” the Parliamentary Committee on constitutional reform was told today.

Professor R. H. Brookes and Dr. A. D. Robinson, of the School of Political Science and Public Administration, Victoria U niversity, argued that establishment of a senate might be undemocratic, or if it was not, that it was unnecessary and unjustified.

In joint submissions to the committee they said they believed there was no justification for the introduction of a written constitution.

Professor Brookes said an upper house with powers to defer legislation was in conflict with democratic principles. For a second chamber less representative of public opinion than the lower house to thwart the elected majority in such a way was manifestly undemocratic. Irrespective of whether the upper house was elected or appointed, party solidarity in; it would be as great. Power:

to defer would only be used when the Opposition had a majority in die upper house. “There will tend to be obstruction of the programme of the democratically-elected Government when the Opposition has a majority, but a free passage when the Government has a majority.” Poor Record Citing Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union, Professor Brooks said second chambers had a poor record as safeguards of freedom and democracy. In Canada and Australia today, they were considered weak and held in low regard. They were retained “not because of any deep belief in the virtue of i second chambers, nor because of any practical utility, but because of the force of inertia.” In few if any countries was the government more sensitive to public opinion and responsive to public feeling than in New Zealand. As to a written constitution, it was difficult to see any great advantages in establishing such a document in New Zealand’s circum-s stances. There were advantages after a political revolu-

tion, when a new system of government had to be outlined, but New Zealand’s rules of government had evolved over 120 years—longer if British experience were taken into account. The New Zealand system, with its legislation, Parliamentary standing orders, judicial interpretations, unwritten conventions and customs, was readily adaptable yet highly stable. Constitutions had failed overseas. In Latin America and Africa they had not stopped dictatorships. A constitution in Germany had not prevented Hitler’s rise to power. Larger House Dr. Robinson recommended that the House of Representatives be enlarged to 120 seats. This would relieve members of much of their increasing burden of work, and enlarge the pool of talent in the House. It would also give better representation, especially in the South Island, and would provide governments with more workable majorities. He and Professor Brookes believed that if members of Parliament were provided with more staff to do research for them and better facilities for research, it would be an influence for the better on policy-making. Parliament was forfeiting much of its influence by meeting only in the last half of the year, Dr. Robinson added. Tlie present four or five months should be lengthened or split into two or more sessions a year. Professor Brookes and Dr. Robinson will be crossexamined at the next session of the committee on April 2.

Members of the committee are Mr R. E. Jack (chairman), the Postmaster-General (Mr Scott), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer), Messrs W. Nash, D. J. Riddiford, W. A. Sheat, H. G. R. Mason, and N. J. King. Absent overseas are the Deputy-Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) and the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Hanan).