The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1971. Parliament and public

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32715, 18 September 1971, Page 16

The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1971. Parliament and public

Two months ago, in spite of a crowded Order Paper, Parliament adjourned for 18 days to give its Select Committees time to catch up on the arrears of legislation under examination. From a House of 84, eight to 12 members must be found for each of more than 30 committees. Some meet seldom; others—the Statutes Revision Committee and the Local Bills Committee, for example—have much more work than can be handled comfortably. Other calls on members’ time, overlapping membership between committees, and the demands of attendance when the House is in session have steadily reduced the ability of members to examine with due deliberation the detail of legislation and to hear submissions from interested parties. Reform has become a matter of urgency. ,

The Leader of the Opposition must be only too well aware of the strain under which he and other members habitually work. But his proposal for a “Parliamentary Council” of 10 members—in effect another committee of the House—before which members of the public might air their grievances offers no prospect of relief; it would put further strains on the system. It is difficult to see what function it would serve that would not duplicate either the work of the Ombudsman or of existing committees.

More committee hearings should be in public. Indeed, a greater sense of public participation in the processes of law-making has been clearly necessary for some time. It will not be achieved by creating yet another committee from an overburdened House. The aim must be to make the working of the whole Parliamentary system more efficient Unfortunately, neither of the main political parties has shown any enthusiasm for the obvious line of reform—the restoration of a second chamber, preferably appointive rather than elective, without power to obstruct but well qualified to consider, revise, and initiate legislation with a calm objectivity rarely possible in the political hurly-burly of the House of Representatives. Failing this, the size of the Lower House must be increased both to relieve the burden on individual members and to permit more attention to be given to committee work. New Zealand makes heavier demands on its M.P.s than most other countries of comparable population and political arrangements. Ireland has a Lower House of 144 members, Israel has 120, Norway 150, and Finland 200. New Zealand could with advantage, and at not too great an expense, expand its singlechamber Legislature to 120 members. Bipartisan agreement on some such proposals should be sought well in advance of next year’s session, which is bound to be heavily preoccupied with preparations for the General Election.