ARGUMENT FOR LONGER SESSIONS

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30470, 18 June 1964, Page 3

ARGUMENT FOR LONGER SESSIONS

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, June 17. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer) today called for longer sessions of Parliament. He told the House he believed the time had come lor a radical change in the present system. Parliament should meet not later than March and continue; with occasional recesses, long enough to give full consideration to all legislation. The present system gave the Cabinet the opportunity to present Parliament with faits accompli when the House was out of session and was bad for the reputation of Parliament.

“In all recent Parliaments —and I do not absolve Labour Governments—there has been a tendency for legislation to accumulate and some important legislation to be passed through in a short space of time,” said Mr Nordmeyer.

The House of Commons met over eight months; the Northern Irish Parliament over nine months; Canada’s Federal Parliament over seven months: and the Australian Federal Parliament over nine months. The length of Parliament raised the fundamental question of the relationship of the Cabinet to Parliament Mr Nordmeyer said. This had been giving constitutional authorities a great deal of worry over the last few months. The Cabinet must perform its function at all times Many administrative matters did not need to be brought before the House, but the opportunity should be given for discussion on all policy matters before a decision was made by the Cabinet. Take-over Bids Mr Nordmeyer gave the decision to allow trading banks to operate savings departments, take-over bids in general, and the bid for the “Dominion” in particular, as instances of policy matters decided by the Cabinet which

should have been debated by the House. Parliament should have been convened to discuss these matters at the time, he said. It was important that the House should have -the chance of expressing its views The rush of legislation near the end of a session was not peculiar to New Zealand, but this did not excuse the practice.

If the public were not informed, and was not able to make representations on legislation, then democracy was hot functioning as it should.

One of the important functions of members - of Parliament was committee work, but the tendency to compress this work into the months that Parliament met left too little time for it The Prime Minister .(Mr Holyoake)- suggested Mr Nordmeyer was trying to "hit the headlines” and “capitalise on certain situations.” He said he wondered why Mr Nordmeyer had chosen “this year of. 1964” to make the suggestion. The rush of legislation had been considerably reduced in the last three years, Mr Holyoake said. He was not impressed with the examples ofother countries given by Mr Nordmeyer. “We make our own rules here.”

He agreed policy decisions

of the Cabinet should come before the House, but often the dividing line between administration and policy matters was thin.

The question of the trading banks was not a fait accompli because, the legislation was yet to come before the House. ’lt was quite ridiculous to raise this particular question. Mr Nordmeyer could not have chosen a worse example. There had never-been any mention by the Cabinet of , retrospective legislation on the proposed take-over of the “Dominion.”

“This was the first time Lord Thomson has taken a bloody nose away with him,” said Mr Holyoake. "I told Lord'Thomson’s representatives *T. sincerely hoped no legislation would be necessary . . . And it wasn’t”

Mr Holyoake said that at one stage he had had telegrams ready to send to every member of Parliament and the proclamation and other documents in print ready to call the House together within seven days if legislation had become necessary. He declined to nominate on which occasion this had occurred. ■ Prime Ministers-had called Parliament together before the end of March 12 times in the last 42 years, Mr Holyoake said. He would not have hesitated to call Parliament

together if there had been any change in policy over the situation in Malaysia or South Vietnam. The length of Parliaments should be watched, but there was no need for any change for the next two or three years. Constituents Neglected “Our case is simply that events in early 1964 have heightened our awareness of the need for an earlier session,” said Mr R. J. Tizard (Opp., Pakuranga).Because they were so busy for several months of the year members were virtually unavailable to their constituents then, said Mr Tizard. The proposal could be coupled with a shorter working week during the session. They would have more time to examine properly the legislation which, at present, came down in a torrent. The proporal . might also overcome some of the arguments in favour of increasing the size of the House. If it were laid down that the House should be called together, a Prime Minister would not appear to be bowing to the demands of the Opposition. The calling of Parliament should nut be his sole responsibility. “Frictions Confused” The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said he felt the fact missed from the discussion was the confusion between the administrative and legislative functions- of the Executive and Parliament. “Every Opposition has claimed it should have a finger in the- administrative function of the Government: but these functions today are becoming more and more divorced. “1 hope we will always be careful to limit the power of the Executive to make law. That is the prerogative of Parliament,” he said. But as long as the Executive retained the majority support of Par-

liament, it retained executive power. The Chamber was reserved to criticise the Government. “Such arguments as Mr Nordmeyer put forward seemed to be based on the idea that this Chamber should be more directly involved in the administration of the Government.. I think that would be a pity'. Amendment Mr Shand then moved as an amendment that “This House having heard the Prime Minister, is satisfied that it would be most unwise to lay down any rigid procedure making it mandatory for Parliament to be called together not later than the end of March each year and reaffitms its confidence in the Prime Minister in leaving, the responsibility as it has always been, to his good sense and judgment, and the House notes with approval the action of the National Government in 1961 in streamlining Standing Orders and reviewing Parliamentary procedures which have expedited and pirdvided for the smooth running of the nation’s business, which shows the contrast with the hasty and ill-advised legislation rushed through Parliament in 1958, 1959 and 1960 by the Labour Party Government.” “The Minister thinks he has been clever,” said Mr E G. R Mason (Opposition, New Lynn). “The Government has plenty of opportunities for ringing its praises. He turns this into a mere matter of party versus party.

“I don’t want to deny the Prime Minister any praises for good, government if he is entitled to them. This is a very disappointing move.” The debate was interrupted by the adjournment for dinner.