COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE NEEDS ANOTHER REVISION

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32776, 29 November 1971, Page 14

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE NEEDS ANOTHER REVISION

(By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON, November 28.—The curtailment of daily sittings of Parliament so close to the end of the session so that Select Committees can complete their work on three important measures is a clear indication that Parliamentary procedures are overdue for revision. The last full revision of procedures was made in 1960.

The Prime Minister (Sir Keith Holyoake) has said that the establishment of a Select Committee on Standing Orders is receiving attention, and that he has discussed the matter with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk).

When Parliament is in session committees are allowed to meet onjy when the House is not actually sitting. The Select Committee system is highly valued, and any procedural change is likely to be aimed at giving these committees-of-both-parties a more flexible time-structure wherein to operate.

It was believed that Parliament would have to adjourn next week to enable the committees concerned to complete their deliberations on several measures and bring them back to Parliament for probable passing this year. Instead, Sir Keith Holyoake has adopted the unprecedented method of conducting the Parliamentary sittings between 7.30 p.m. and midnight next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, leaving the committees to meet during the daytime. Among the measures are the Racing Bill (before a special Select Committee), and the Race Relations Bill (before the Statues Revision Committee).

■Hie evening sittings of Parliament will enable a great deal of legislative work to be done, but even so it is only when the committees’ several measures are reported back to the House that anyone will know how long the session will last. If all measures before committees are returned for final action this year, the resulting debates could last until Friday, December 17. Advisory body Since the abolition of the Legislative Council there have been many attempts to set up an advisory body which could examine all legislation

before it was finally passed. 1 This, it is contended, would i reduce the amount of amend- ; ing legislation (though, of course, it would not remove the need for the amendments designed to deal with changing circumstances). Shortly before the death of the late Sir Sidney Holland, the legal branch of the National Party put before the annual conference of the party a suggestion for an advisory Upper House containing 12 learned jurists and 12 persons selected for their special knowledge. This idea was not developed, mainly because there was strong feeling against restoring any sort of a Second House. Evolved system The Select Committee sys- ' tem has evolved, and is 1 highly regarded. Unfortunately, no way has been tried so far which will give the committees the freedom 1 of movement, of discussion, and of the compilation of evidence required. Under the present system, Select Committees cannot meet on afternoons or evenings during the session, because the presence of the members is required in the House. They cannot even meet regularly during weekday mornings, for members’ presence is required at Cabinet, at caucus, and in other places. As a result, some Select Committees have been forced into long delays. The plight of the Local . Bills Committee might be remembered when ;it began examining the ' Christchurch City Council j (Reserves) Empowering Bill i last year. It had to wait well - into recess before it could leave Wellington for the requisite few days to hear evidence and make its own inspection in Christchurch. On July 11, Parliament was forced to take an 18-day adjournment in order to allow its Select Committees to examine the work before them. At that stage Parliament had been sitting from February 25, with an elevenweek recess until June 9. At the July recess, 28 measures were before Select Committees.

It is interesting to note that at the July recess the measures known as the "drug bills” were before

both the Statutes Revision Committee and the Social Services Committee. They were the Child Welfare Amendment Bill, the Guardianship Amendment Bill, the Police Offences Amendment Bill, and Mr T. F. Gill’s Welfare of Minors Bill.

They are still there. But a few days ago, in introducing the Guardianship Amendment (No. 2) Bill, the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr Thomson) announced that the four other measures would not be proceeded with. If this seems a cavalier way of disposing of draft legislation, it is also a fact that there is no machinery which lays down that matters referred to Select Committes must be returned to and disposed of by the House.

A bare cupboard If it had not been for the congestion before some Select Committees, Parliament could well have risen for the year already. The Order Paper has very. little on it except the usual sessional clean-up measures, plus a few which could have been disposed of some weeks ago.

The big battle of the last week has been over the Stabilisation of Remuneration Amendment Bill, but this has been fought out largely without heat or special measures. It almost came as a surprise when the chairman of committees (Mr A. E. Allen) ordered Mr A. J. Faulkner (Lab., Roskill) from the chamber late on Wednesday night. Only about a dozen measures remain in various stages before the long and non-effective “tail” of the Order Paper is reached. Here are all the private members’ measures, from Mr H. L. J. May’s perennial Fire Services Amendment Bill to Mr M. Rata’s New Zealand Day Bill and Mr H. Watt’s Post Office Amendment Bill.

They will all vanish when the House rises, along with the notices of motion unreached. Perhaps the only part of the Order Paper we may hear of again consists

pf the bills which are still before Select Committees. Now the “drug bills" have gone, there are only half-a-dozen general measures left.