‘Drastic Reform’ Urged

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30899, 4 November 1965, Page 3

‘Drastic Reform’ Urged

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, Nov. 3. The principal impression left by the session of Parliament just finished was that a drastic revision of procedures was urgently necessary, the actingpresident of the Constitutional Societv (Mr S. W. Peterson, of Wellington) said today.

“It is gratifying to find the leaders of both parties giving some support at the end of the session to that idea, but it is surprising that something was not done about it earlier. The Constitutional Reform Committee of the House recommended in its report fabled 16 months ago that a select committee study the standing orders or procedures with a view to drawing up proposals to avoid the accumulation of work and pressure that tends to occur, particularly towards the end of a session, and provide more time for consideration by members of the community of legislation after it has been publicised by the second reading debate,” said Mr Peterson.

“After that report was debated by the House in July of this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) rejected the proposal as premature because the standing orders of the House had been revised only three years ago,” Mr Peterson said.

“This session provided examples of controversial legislation introduced late and forced through Parliament in a chaotic welter of law-making in the final weeks.

“This is something of which politicians and the people of New Zealand cannot be proud.

“It is indeed unfortunate that those who now appear to support the idea of improve-

ments in procedure did not ensure that the study by a select committee would be set in motion during the next seven or eight months, when Parliament will not be sitting. As a committee cannot now be appointed until next year, it will probably not. have time to undertake the task during the session or in the election period and any recommendations it eventually makes could not be adopted before 1967,” said Mr Peterson.

“After this year’s performance, which in some ways was one of the worst in recent memory, it is indeed unfortunate that there should be further delay in making-Par liament and its procedures more efficient.

“The second abiding impression of the 1965 session is that further serious inroads were made in individual freedom,” Mr Peterson said.

“Police and various types of inspectors can now invade our homes without warrants and we can be prosecuted for refusing them entry. “Moreover, the Government can now dictate to a greater extent than before who can own certain forms of businesses and the way they must be conducted. These are saddening developments for most thinking citizens,” said Mr Peterson.