PITFALLS IN A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23315, 26 July 1950, Page 9

PITFALLS IN A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION

(Special) WELLINGTON, July 26. A written constitution cannot protect New Zealand from the effects of hasty legislation by an unfettered House of Representatives.

This was the authoritative view presented to the House yesterday by two legal members of the Government one being the Attorney-General, Mr. T. C. Webb, who had announced in the recess the possibility of a constitution if the Upper House were abolished. Their view was reinforced by a former Attorney-General, Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Opp. Waitakerc).

“Some people seem to think I have been pushing for a written constitution,’’ said Mr. Webb. "There are many thoughtful people in the community who think that a written constitution is desirable. My own view is that it is not possible.”

Pie thought it better to have a flexible system. There was no means by which, in a constitution, one Government could fetter its successor. If a Constitution Act provided that there could be no alteration without the approval 6£ the people in a referendum, then there would have to be some majority set for the referendum. Majority Considerations Some would sugest it should be a bare majority, but by amending the Act other Governments could provide for anything up to a 90 per cent, majority, or could even state that all the electors would have to agree to any alteration. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. P. Fraser: They forget that such an Act can be repealed. Mr. Webb said that that was what he was about to say. A subsequent Government could repeal the Act or could repeal sections of the Act providing for a referendum and, if that were passed by the House, then it would become law. The same institution that passed a law could repeal it. Some had in mind that a written constitution could sprag the wheel of a subsequent Government. A written constitution would merely put the clock The Minister of Education, Mr. R. M. Algie, suggested that as a result of the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution Amendment Act of 1947, New Zealand had become a fully-fledged, self-governing community and the people—and the people alone —were sovereign. There was no rivalry for political power except between parties. Need Doubted “If the people can hold their position —and it depends on them—there is no need for a constitution,” said Mr. Algie. “If they cannot hold it a constitution will not protect them.” Mr. H. E. Combs (Opp., Onslow) said a Government could write into a Constitution Bill a stumbling block for the future which it would _ be very difficult to overcome. An incoming Government of a different colour might find itself hobbled and democracy would founder because of conditions laid down in the constitution and because, written into that constitution, might be an advisory or revisionary council which could not be changed for a period of years. "We have to have a clear-cut answer," said Mr. Combs. The Prime Minister, Mr. S. G. Holland: If I give the assurance the honourable gentleman asks for, will he then support the bill? (Government laughter). Mr. Combs: We want that assurance.

The Minister of External Affairs, Mr. F. W. Doidge: Will you support the bill if you get it? The Prime Minister was asking for an assurance before he gave one himself, said Mr. Combs.

“1 wili give you my word I will give my assurance when I reply and I will ask you to give me yours,” said Mr. Holland.

Mr. Mason agreed with the Minister of Education that a written constitution would not be worth the time spent in writing it because the law could be altered, or if not it would be a straitjacket.