Parliamentary Reform In Australia Urged

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30884, 18 October 1965, Page 8

Parliamentary Reform In Australia Urged

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

CANBERRA, Oct. 15. The demand for Australian Parliamentary reform intensified in the House of Representatives last night.

Government and Opposition m e m b e rs turned the debate on the Parliamentary estimates into a concerted plea for reform.

; At least 15 members demanded some change ranging from procedural revision to a : complete overhaul of the Parliamentary system. Mr F. M. Daly (A.L.P.. N.S.W.) threatened that the Opposition would “tie up” the House if the Government persisted in late sittings to rush through legislation. The si-hour debate, which began last night, was the longest on the Parliamentary estimates in recent years. “Useless Junk”

Mr R. F. X. Connor (A.L.P., N.S.W.) said Parliamentary procedure and standing orders included a lot of “useless junk,” dating back to the days of the English squires. Mr D. J. Killen (Lib., Queensland) expressed concern at the decline in Parliamentary authority. He said this was reflected in repeated calls for the appointment of an ombudsman.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Arthur Calwell) said Australia might have to adopt the U.S. Presidential system, while maintaining the Monarchy “as the only binding force left.”

Mr Calwell said the present Parliamentary system might “break down under its own weight.” The tendency was growing for the executive to invade the rights of members. (Members on both sides felt frustrated. They felt there 'was no adequate way by

which they could express their opinions to Parliament, and, through Parliament, to the people. The system of committees should be made to work better than at present.

Mr Calwell said: “I am not so sure that this Parliamentary system as we know it is going to stand. I am not sure that it will not break down of it own weight. “The British Parliament with 660 members has no committee system at all and is governed by a handful of people: It is governed by no more than 50 people.

j “I think that if honourable I members want the Parliament to be broken up into committees. sonner or later—and 1 am putting this forward as my own view entirely—we will have to alter the Consitution and abolish the British inherited system of Cabinet responsibility to the Parliament. Checks And Balances “We will have to go right over to the American system and have an elected president, who will have greater powers than the Prime Minister, but will be kept in check, as the President of the United States is kept in check, under the system of checks and balances inherent in the committee systems that operate in both Houses under the American procedure. "I believe that honourable members in such a situation would have more power than they have today.

“On the Government side, whatever Goverment is in power, they merely aet as rubber stamps for what the Government wants.

“The Opposition is ineffective because the executive has such tremendous powers and is taking more and more.

“So if we want to have an informed democracy, in which the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are all truly separate, we might have the American system operating here.”