DEBATE ON SECOND CHAMBER

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30795, 6 July 1965, Page 3

DEBATE ON SECOND CHAMBER

(Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 5. A debate on the report of the Constihv tional Reform Committee, which considered proposals to establish a second chamber of Parliament and a written constitution, is scheduled to take place in Parliament on Thursday night. The committee, which reported its findings to the House last year, made no recommendation on the first proposal and recommended that the New Zealand Bill of Rights, 1963, be not allowed to proceed. The committee’s report was received by the House exactly

one year from the day on which it is now to be discussed, and was not debated last session because of more urgent business. The proposal to re-establish a bicameral legislature was made in a petition, signed by Mr J. B. Donald and 10,216 others, it sought the setting up of a second legislative chamber of fixed number, a majority popularly elected. The Upper House would have had power to consider and defer legislation, but not to defeat it.. It would also have been able to initiate legislation not related to taxation. According to its proponents, the purposes of the Upper House would have been to safeguard against hastily or ill-considered legislation and “the abuse of power by an unscrupulous single chamber,” as well as helping the House with its work and im-

proving the general efficiency of the law-making machine. In dealing with the petition, the committee said even supposing the present constitution had the dangers and defects said to call for remedy, it was of the opinion the proposal would not furnish an effective answer. The,Bil of Rights was introduced in the House in 1963 to give statutory recognition to human rights and freedoms. It was modelled on the Can-' adian Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was introduced to fulfil National Party policy. The committee gave no reasons for its rejection of the bill. These are expected to be revealed in the debate. Members are certain to accept-both of the committee's findings, but considerable interest centres on whether or not action will be taken on

two measures affecting Parliamentary business which the committee urged. It suggested the establishment of a select committee to review present Parliamentary standing orders and procedures, and to propose measures to ease the accumulation of work and pressure of legislation, particularly towards the end of the session. It felt also more time could ,well be provided for public consideration of legislation after it had been publicised by a second reading debate. The former suggestion has been received with a good deal of sympathy by members on both rsides of the House and action on it is considered likely. The second point has fewer adherents but may be referred to. the committee established to review standing orders for study.