Part played by Crown in constitutional government

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34146, 6 May 1976, Page 21

Part played by Crown in constitutional government

(N.Z. Press Association) INVERCARGILL. Widespread misunderstanding, even ignorance, of the part the Crown played in the constitutional background of New Zealand was noted by the Governor-General (Sir Denis Blundell) in an address in Invercargill.

Sir Denis in an address to Rotarians and members of other service clubs, said he made his remarks against a background of interest created by events in Australia last year and because he had received many letters and telegrams urging him to use his prerogative to summon Parliament because of concern about such issues as the New Zealand Superannuation Act and visits by nuclear ships.

The powers of the Governor-General came from three main sources, Sir Denis said — Acts of the New Zealand Parliament, the Letters Patent which all Governors-General received from the Queen, and conventions, which were not in writing but which had “the force almost of the law of the Medes and Persians.” PERSUASIVE FORCE

“They are not absolute but they have a persuasive force which permits our system to run smoothly and without which we would soon be in considerable trouble,” Sir Denis said. Powers granted under Acts of Parliament included the power to summon and prorogue Parliament, and the statutory right to grant or refuse assent to bills. Other Acts gave powers to the Governor-General in Council, acting as head of the Executive Council. Direct authority given under Letters Patent included the power to appoint and dismiss Ministers, to summon and dissolve Parliament, and to exercise the prerogative of mercy. Conventions under which the Governor-General acted were accepted almost as if they were law; but one of their great strengths was that they were not in writing. Their limits were not defined and the area of discretion within those limits was likewise not defined. CUMULATIVE EFFECT

“It is the cumulative effect of the switchover in British history down the centuries from the monarchy being an absolute monarchy and autocracy to the stage it has been for the last century or so, when it has been a benevolent monarchy; where it is accepted that all the smaller decisions affecting

(the government of the country are to be left in the hands of the elected representatives of the country, but with a reservoir of powers which the monarch has and which the politicians accept, which are there to be used if something goes wrong in the political sphere, where the politicians themselves will not act properly or create an impasse that they are unable to resolve.” One of the conventions was that the Crown stood clear of matters of public political controversy, and did not engage in political decisions, indeed had no right other than to be informed of what those decisions were or would be. Another was that the Governor-General acted on the advice of his Ministers, which meant on the advice of the Prime Minister. Neither convention was in absolute terms and was not like a statutory obligation.

AUSTRALIAN SITUATION Sir Denis said that in Australia, the GovernorGeneral had been faced with the position that his Prime Minister had a majority in the house of Representatives but not in the Senate and had run into problems with supply.

“In those circumstances, he exeiciscd the power to do what you all know he did do,” Sir Denis said.

If New Zealand ran into trouble through the parties being so equal that the Government could not get a bill of supply through — although there was only one chamber, not two — precisely the same situation could arise, “at which point,” Sir Denis said, “if the Governor-General did not get the correct advice from the Prime Minister, he would have to act.” On the matter of summoning Parliament because of

the disagreement that existed on the Superannuation Act, Sir Denis said that, this was an occasion when the people were divided and he acted on the advice of the Prime Minister; but he pointed out that neither the Queen nor the Governor-General had authority over how Parliament conducted its business or what business was considered; and so how futile it would be for him to exercise his authority to summon Parliament and for the Government to say that it was not going to introduce any business of that nature or do anything to remedy the situation.

“This all seems to me to emphasise the importance in these matters of running the country’s affairs that the Governor-General should act on the advice of the Prime Minister,” Sir Denis said. On the withholding of as-

sent to a bill, Sir Denis said that this would be an immensely serious thing to do. However, if, without having a mandate from the people, and without there being some national emergency to justify the situation, the Government for the time being wished to stay in office indefinitely and exercised its Parliamentary majority to do so — as it could, if it got the Royal Assent — this would be an occasion, he felt sure, when the Governor-General would refuse assent and tell the Government to go to the people.

Sir Denis said that as far as he was aware, at any rate this century, no governorgeneral had been called upon to exercise the powers he had outlined — “which shows how strong are these conventions, how wise are our politicians, and that the thing works,” he said.