Doubts On Second Chamber

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30424, 24 April 1964, Page 3

Doubts On Second Chamber

(N Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, April 23.

It was doubtful whether the establishment of a second Chamber would achieve the results desired, the Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles) told the Constitutional Reform Committee today.

The best way to ensure that the duties of Parliament were adequately and efficiently discharged would be to provide members with better facilities such as more secretarial assistance and advice from counsel and investigating officers, said Sir Guy Powles. Members could be paid more and sessions could be longer. It was hard to find examples where the existence of a second chamber had operated to safeguard liberties or where lack of it had harmed them.

If the basic rights and freedoms of a citizen were enshrined in a Bill of Rights, the citizen would be fully

informed of his rights and public opinion could be effectively mobilised in defence of them.

British law had always had to be practical and procedural in approach and hence had been effective in protecting the citizens from many injustices of authority. Some fundamental rights had been enforced through the courts by writs of habeas corpus and so on.

This system had been criticised as cumbersome and not fully effective. The criticism might not be so valid in New Zealand as elsewhere but needed considering. Sir Guy Powles suggested

a declaration of rights along the lines of the one in the bill of rights previously discussed by Parliament

That bill declared that in New Zealand certain fundamental human rights and freedoms existed, and should continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national region, colour, religion, opinion, belief or sex.

The practical value of a bill of rights lay in the effectiveness of the methods available for the enforcement of its declarations, said Sir Guy Powles. Many modern constitutions contained admirable bill of rights sections which were useless in this respect because they lacked enforcement procedures. He also suggested an amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act on the lines of clause three of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. This clause said every enactment of Parliament should be so construed as not to infringe any of the rights declared.

Sir Guy Powles suggested a statutory codification of the principles upon which the courts would grant a declaratory order, and simplification of the procedure to obtain such an order.

This would take the place of the special writs. An officer could be appointed as a citizens’ rights authority to report to Parliament any failures to observe the declared principles, and to bring appropriate cases to court for declaratory orders.