A Second Chamber

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30802, 14 July 1965, Page 14

A Second Chamber

Sir.—None of the arguments which have been put forward in favour of a revived second chamber in the New Zealand Parliament appear very convincing. Surely we can trust our elected representatives to steer clear of constitutional irregularities. After all. they do depend on us for their continued employment. The only sensible argument is that an upper house could ease the burden of committee work which at present slows down the speed (impossible?) with which work progresses in the House of Representatives. However this could be done better by increasing the membership of

the present House, a move which is desirable for many other reasons as well. A reinstituted Legislative Council is not wanted in New Zealand. for any real power it possessed would be alien to democratic traditions, and if it had no power, it would be superfluous.—Yours, etc.. PAUL H GROCOTT. July 12, 1965.

Sir, —May 1 congratulate you on an excellent and welllalanced leader on this subject. One drawback of a welfare State is the tendency of the elector, having paid his subscription to the party of his choice, and voted for it on polling day, to regard the Government as either the ally or the enemy of his personal interests. Mr Taiboys once reproached, with some justification, those people who professed themselves “not interested in politics.” But ' what is there, within the present framework, to interest them? With no third party to intervene on either side in a debate, the result is a foregone conclusion and the drift to paternalistic legislation seems inevitable. A second chamber, composed of professional and academic elements, with no axe to grind and the wit to chal'enge controversial legislation. would seem to be the only safeguard against the apathetic acceptance by the electorate of measures which might ultimately whittle away what freedom it now enjoys. —Yours, etc.. CARACTACUS. July 13. 1965.