N.C.W. wants return to upper house

Press, 16 April 1986, Page 12

N.C.W. wants return to upper house

A National Council of Women has called for a feasibility study on bringing back an upper house to Parliament as a check on Government power. The N.C.W. has surveyed its membership on the Government’s draft Bill of Rights and almost half the replies want a second chamber restored, either as an alternative to the bill or in its own right.

New Zealand’s upper house, the Legislative Council, was abolished in 1951. It consisted of members appointed by the Governor-General — at first for life, but after 1891 for seven-year terms. Most of the proposals for forming an upper house were tentative, the N.C.W. has said in a submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Justice and Law Reform. “But the consensus was that it should not be difficult to develop a method of appointing or electing people to such a second chamber who would en-

sure that it satisfactorily fulfilled the role required of it.”

The women’s council also urged the Government to refrain from introducing legislation on the bill of rights until more people had had time to study it. The select committee is hearing submissions on the draft bill, tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, about a year ago. Supporting a bill of rights, the Joint Method-ist-Presbyterian Public Questions Committee said it should contain recognition of the rights of children.

“It cannot always be assumed that parents, guardians and others entrusted with the care of children will respect these rights.”

The committee also recommended that the bill include certain economic and social rights, such as the right to work and the right to a living wage.

It noted that while the bill contained provisions covering the rights of individuals charged with crimes, the victims of crimes also had rights and thought should be given to including them.

The committee expressed concern about the power the bill would give High Court judges. Judges were not elected by popular vote, but would have the authority to declare laws made by elected representatives invalid.

“Can we rely on Governments to continue the tradition of impartial appointments to the Judiciary and to avoid the temptation to appoint people on the basis of whether they are likely to interpret the Bill of Rights liberally or conservatively?” The committee was also worried that if judges were required to make “political” decisions, respect for the Judiciary might be diminished.